The Secretary of State was asked—

Bob Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution that has been made by the TA over time, and about the skills—niche skills—and maturity that members of the TA can bring to our operational theatres. As he says, the London brigade is the lead cohort for infantry for Herrick 12 next year. Altogether, 130 men will be mobilised on 16 November. I thank that brigade for the part it will play in organising that deployment.

Ann Winterton: Now that the "one Army" concept has been, at the very least, severely damaged by the decisions of the regular generals last week, how does the Secretary of State believe it will feed through to retention rates within the TA? Has he considered another blow to morale—to all those small employers who have supported so generously their personnel going off on active duty?

Doug Henderson: In considering the role of the TA as well as the regular Army in Afghanistan, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that armies understand—they do not necessarily have to agree—precisely what their role is? Does he also agree that there is now considerable ambiguity in Afghanistan, especially following the withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah from the presidential election, and that there is a need for the international community to build a new consensus on the way forward, which should include all the regional power groups in Afghanistan?

Bob Ainsworth: I agree that the politics need to advance a long way in Afghanistan. Abdullah Abdullah's decision to withdraw, and the decision taken this morning by the electoral commission to accept that there is therefore no need for a second round, point up the difficulties we have in this area, but they are also welcome, because there was no point in a second round when the decision had effectively been taken.
	I must say to my hon. Friend that I have talked to troops in theatre, and they know that they are not the answer in Afghanistan—there has to be a political answer—but they clearly know what their role is. They know that they are a force for good, and they know the work they are doing, and they do not allow themselves to be distracted from it by the political problems that they see and understand.

Bob Ainsworth: I cannot recall to what degree the hon. Gentleman engaged with the discussions that we had at the time that we published that review, but it was a strategic review that laid a framework for the future of our reserved forces. It acknowledged the funding issues that would have to be dealt with separately. Just because there were and are resource constraints, it does not mean that we should stop people doing the necessary thinking that needs to take place about the strategic direction of the reserve. Yes, some of the implementation will have to wait until resources are available and will have to stand in line for resources, along with the Department's other priorities.

Bob Ainsworth: Where is the clarity about the decisions that would have to be taken by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? They criticise everything that is done, but are not prepared or able to say what they would do. Tough choices need to be taken, and if people are trying to present themselves as capable of governing, they have to be prepared—as the shadow Chancellor knows—to take those choices. It is clear that the Defence team are not.

Nick Harvey: I welcome what the Minister said about the short-term measures that he is taking, but will he clarify the situation post-2012? Is it still his intention that three of the twelve bases will run on a 12-hour basis, not on a 24-hour basis? There is grave concern in the south-west, where people simply cannot understand why, if three bases are to run on a 12-hour basis, two of them—Portland and Chivenor—should run contiguously, leaving Culdrose to cover the Atlantic, the English channel, the Bristol channel, the south-west peninsula and Wales.

Bob Ainsworth: Now that we at last have an end to this election period, we need to prevail on the Afghan Government to be inclusive, to build good governance in the various different parts of the country—we have seen the benefit of that in Helmand province, where we have had a good governor for some time—and to tackle the very deep levels of corruption in Afghanistan. Unless the Afghan people can see a Government who are of benefit to them, all the efforts of our brave forces will not get us very far. That has to be the main focus of our effort and that of our allies.

Liam Fox: I hoped that we might get some clarity here. The Government recently stated that a further potential troop uplift would be to augment the mission, improve the protection for our armed forces and speed up the training of the Afghan national army. The Government then applied conditions, including an increased commitment from European NATO members. As the Bratislava meeting last week made it clear that they will not make that commitment, how long will the Government allow that issue to be a smokescreen for inaction? If their reasons—the safety of our forces and the success of the mission—are so compelling, why the delay?

Bob Ainsworth: It is not a smokescreen at all. The hon. Gentleman ought to welcome the fact that we are not prepared to put in the further troops until we can satisfy ourselves that the equipment levels are adequate for the increased force, or until we have had an opportunity to talk in detail to all our allies, including the United States of America, about what contribution they are making. Heaven knows there are people on the hon. Gentleman's side—including the hon. Gentleman himself—who complain all the time about burden sharing. Now, here we are, trying to talk to people about their own burden and their preparedness to put forces into Afghanistan, yet he wants us to say, "Let's forget about that and put the extra troops in now." That really is nonsense.

Quentin Davies: I am delighted to have the opportunity to say quite clearly on the record that the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers are complete rubbish. There is no suggestion—it has never been in our minds at all—to re-specify either of the two aircraft carriers. There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our joint strike fighter programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft.

Lynda Waltho: As the Gray report refers to major procurement activities, will the Minister tell me, and the House, what recent discussions he has had with commanders on the ground about the effectiveness of personal protection equipment for our troops in theatre—such as the Stourbridge war hero, 19-year-old Michelle Norris, who risked her life and was the first woman to gain the military cross for her work?

Quentin Davies: She was a particularly gallant lady, providing a wonderful and inspiring example to us all. The answer to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to raise this matter, is that we attempt to achieve the very best in personal protection, the very best in the latest techniques to counter improvised explosive devices, the very best armoured and protected vehicles for our troops, the very best in communications equipment and the very best in personal equipment. So far as personal equipment is concerned, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we now have the new Osprey assault armour—the latest version of it. The Osprey was brought in only two or three years ago—it was then the best of its time—and now we have the Osprey assault and the new mark 7 helmet. The latest roulement of troops out to Afghanistan a month ago were carrying that new armour, in respect of which they had undertaken pre-deployment training. Our principle in supplying Afghanistan with kit is a continuous pipeline of improvement, and the best available that money can buy at any point.

James Arbuthnot: Page 38 of Bernard Gray's report says that
	"between £1 billion and £2.2 billion is being lost each year as a result of the failure to control this overheated equipment programme".
	Does the Minister agree?

Quentin Davies: Of course I noticed that rather startling figure when I read the Gray report myself. The right hon. Gentleman, who has obviously read the report, will also have noticed that there is no evidential basis for that statement anywhere in it, nor is there an evidential basis for it anywhere else that I have ever come across. The very fact that the figure ranges between £1 billion and more than £2 billion shows, I think, how imprecise that statement inevitably is.

Quentin Davies: We continue to keep our equipment programme under constant review. The whole purpose of having an equipment programme—this is my job—is to ensure that it is managed on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis so that it is coherent, and so that we can make such changes as are required as a result of changing operational or other priorities. At any one time, of course, it must also be affordable. We can spend only the money we have in any one year, and we always meet our contractual liabilities. This programme is constantly under review and constantly under management. There is no question of suddenly taking one decision and viewing it as valid for all time.

Gerald Howarth: The Government's stewardship of the defence of the realm has suffered two damning indictments in two weeks—the Gray report and also the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod. In considering how to respond to the devastating criticism contained in the Bernard Gray report, will the Government ensure that the lessons in the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod are also fully learned so that the welfare of our armed forces is given priority over cost-cutting in the Ministry of Defence?

Quentin Davies: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's concern—he is trying to make a party political point—I think he has fundamentally misunderstood something important: the Haddon-Cave report, although it produced some very serious and worrying conclusions, is focused on the issue of airworthiness, whereas the Gray report is entirely about procurement. Clearly, we take into account in our procurement reforms—about which I have already made a statement—any relevant conclusions from the Haddon-Cave report, but the prime issue in that report is the procedures for delivering airworthiness certificates for our aircraft.

Bob Ainsworth: In April this year, after considering options in consultation with the service chiefs, we announced an uplift in force levels to 9,000 for the period of the election in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister confirmed on 14 October that we had agreed to maintain UK troops at that level beyond the election period.
	We have also agreed in principle a new force level of 9,500, which will be put into effect subject to the following conditions: first, that the new Afghan Government bring forward the Afghan troops to be trained and to fight alongside our forces; secondly, that our commitment is part of an agreed approach and burden-sharing across the international coalition; and thirdly, that military commanders are satisfied that the extra troops are properly equipped for what they are being asked to do.
	In all, that means that, in principle, we have increased our troop numbers by about 1,500 in just over six months.

Bob Ainsworth: I have received lots of offers of extra helicopters for Afghanistan. What I have not received is an offer for what was described over the weekend as the ability, for the sum of £7 million a month, of about 20 Chinooks to ferry our troops around.

Bob Ainsworth: That is what was said on the television by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway), who is now remonstrating with me from a sedentary position. We do have, and we will assess, offers of helicopters for logistics and supplies. If any Member wants to encourage us to put in a bid for a new contract in that regard, we shall be happy to evaluate it, but the idea that we can secure additional lift for our troops in the way in which our nation was told we could at the weekend is total, complete and utter nonsense.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend add a fourth condition to the three that he listed, namely that there should be substantial progress in the elimination of corruption at the centre in Afghanistan and in Kandahar province? Will he bear in mind that any further measures relating to presidential elections will be a pointless and dangerous exercise until that progress is made?

Afghanistan

Bob Ainsworth: I think we all need to share responsibility for that, and to help in any way we can. As I have said—and I do not think that any member of any of the three parties, including Back Benchers, disagrees with me—our presence in Afghanistan can only be justified by a threat to our national security, and the overwhelming importance that the region has for our national interests here in the United Kingdom.

Bob Ainsworth: The level of threat in Afghanistan is a very real problem for civilians trying to operate in that country. There are, of course, circumstances in which private military companies can and do provide the necessary level of security, and therefore our forces are more than happy not to have that burden themselves.

Bill Rammell: Let me be very clear: we do not deploy troops where there is an unacceptable balance of risk. Rightly, our priority—I think that Members throughout the House will agree with this—is to get the best possible equipment into theatre, but we are certainly increasing the availability of equipment for training. For example, between July and October we achieved a 50 per cent. increase in the number of Ridgback and Jackal vehicles available for pre-deployment training. However, wherever there is a gap, that is addressed so that we do not deploy troops in circumstances where there is an unacceptable balance of risk.

Bill Rammell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the past three years we have spent an additional £10 billion on new equipment. He also knows that he and his colleagues are not proposing one penny extra in additional defence expenditure than this Government. In the current circumstances, the priority has to be the delivery of equipment to theatre. That is what we are doing, but we do not do so and deploy troops where there is an unacceptable balance of risk.

Michael Fabricant: I am pleased to hear that it is making good progress, but the Secretary of State will know that both the Government and the Conservative party are committed to a nuclear deterrent and yet this one is beginning to wear out. When will we have an announcement on when there will be a replacement?

Bob Ainsworth: All our plans were laid out in the 2006 White Paper. The position has not changed on my side of the House; the only person who has brought the position into question is the shadow Chancellor, who appears to have waged—

Nuclear Weapons

Kevan Jones: The Department has a good record on veterans' mental health: we have six veterans' health pilot schemes, as well as the medical assessment programme, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, at the hospital across the river. I shall also make an announcement later this year on how we can track veterans through the NHS system—that work will be done with the Department of Health.

Edward Vaizey: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I just pass on my condolences to the friends and family of Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid? Although not a constituent of mine, he was based at 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, which is based at the Vauxhall barracks in my constituency. He was, sadly, killed in Afghanistan on Saturday, and that is a salutary reminder of the dangers that that regiment faces every day. To follow up on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), I should mention that a distinguished former serviceman in my constituency attempted to access NHS services recently and discovered that the John Radcliffe hospital, his local community hospital and his own GP's surgery were completely unaware of the protocol between the Veterans Agency and the NHS. It took him five months—

Bob Ainsworth: As I have said, the Pakistanis should be congratulated on the efforts that we are making, but we should not underestimate the degree to which they have a problem. We have seen a concerted attack by terrorist organisations on the population centres in Pakistan over the past few months, so although the Pakistani military has made considerable progress, the terrorists are far from prepared to give in to the kind of assault to which they are being subjected.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman talks about equipment and does so within the frame of eight years. Enemy tactics change—they have changed considerably and massively in the past year— [ Interruption. ] Yes, ours must change too. To suggest that the equipment that we had eight years ago is applicable to the campaign as it is run today is nonsense.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend preaches a notion of despair as regards anything that can be done in Afghanistan. We need to accept, first—I am not sure that my hon. Friend does—that Afghanistan poses a direct threat to us in the United Kingdom and that something therefore needs to be done, and, secondly, that the entire region, and Pakistan in particular, is massively important to our security in the United Kingdom. I resile from the despair that he preaches.

Kevan Jones: I certainly would, and I should like to draw the House's and public's attention not only to the poppy appeal, but to the work that the Royal British Legion and other service charities do throughout the year. I should also like to put on record and thank the army of volunteers who work for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and for the Royal British Legion who—week in, week out, without pay—assist and help service veterans.

Kevan Jones: I announced in a written answer earlier this year that we would set up a study into the health effects and health needs of nuclear-test veterans. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has been meeting my officials to scope the study. We are now putting it out to tender, to ensure that we get a competent organisation to undertake it, and I will keep the House informed as that work goes on.

David Hamilton: I had the privilege of being in the Gulf with the Royal Navy during the summer recess. The temperature was about 90 to 100°, yet on level 2, naval personnel still have to wear heavy-duty gear all through the summer. Can we not talk to the Australians, Japanese or someone else to consider fireproof, lightweight uniforms, so that naval personnel can be not just comfortable but more effective?

David Davis: The tragic death of Colonel Thorneloe brought back to our minds the scandalous shortfall in helicopters. Over the weekend, it became clear—the Secretary of State himself said—that the Government had had offers of helicopters. So it is clear that this involves a financial resource and therefore a political problem. It should have been answered by a Minister. Why did they put up Sir Jock Stirrup to answer the question? Will they continue to compound their strategic incompetence with political cowardice?

Bob Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman should have watched the weekend television with a bit more care—my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces answered questions in this regard as well—and it is clear that we have offers of helicopters for supplies and logistics. What we do not have, and have not had, is an offer of helicopters of the kind of capability and with the defensive aids that would be necessary to ferry our troops around in a very dangerous theatre. That is the point, and the claims made over the weekend are not true.

Bob Ainsworth: But the only reason that they are not in Afghanistan is because our troops are there. If they were not there, the Afghan Government would not be capable of standing up on their own. They would fall. There is a high risk that the Taliban Government would be back, and those camps would therefore be welcomed back in Afghanistan and would resume the position of threat that they once were.

Dari Taylor: The statement on helicopters last week suggested to the House that we are seriously looking at cutting expenditure—those were the reports in the press over the weekend—and that the MOD staff are not on top of the issue. I would like reassurances that those reports are nonsensical.

Quentin Davies: The position on helicopters is clear. Let me say solemnly to the House, because this is an important matter, that no commander, no senior officer has ever said to me in Afghanistan or here—that includes Sir Richard Dannatt, who I think has a certain credibility with those on the Opposition Benches—that there are insufficient helicopters in theatre to enable our troops to fulfil their mission, but all the commanders would like to have more. That is why we are supplying more. The House has already heard the figures for the past three years—an increase of 60 per cent. in helicopters and of more than 80 per cent. in helicopter hours available. On top of that, in the past year or so, we have refitted the Lynx helicopters with new engines—22 of those, which will be available next year—

Bob Ainsworth: We have not. It is nonsense.

Alan Johnson: There is no question but that, since its establishment in 1971, the independent and expert advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been invaluable to the successive Governments whom it has served. Later today the House will consider imposing greater controls on the party drug GBL, BZP and synthetic cannabinoids, all in accordance with advice from the council.
	Of the 21 recommendations that the council made in its report "Cannabis: Classification and Public Health", published in April 2008, the Home Office accepted 20 and rejected one, on classification. Of the 13 recommendations made in its report on ecstasy in February 2009, the Home Office accepted 11 and rejected two—one on classification and the other on the recommendation to explore a national scheme to enable drug testing of ecstasy tablets and powders for people's personal use.
	I asked Professor Nutt to resign as my principal drugs adviser, not because of the work of the council but because of his failure to recognise that, as chair of ACMD, his role is to advise rather than to criticise Government policy on drugs. In February, while awaiting publication of the Government's position on the classification of ecstasy, of which he was already aware, Professor Nutt published an article and addressed the media on the appropriateness or otherwise of the Government's policy framework, expressing a view that horse riding was more dangerous than ecstasy.
	On Thursday 29 October Professor Nutt chose, without prior notification to my Department, to initiate a debate on drugs policy in the national media, returning to the February decisions and accusing my predecessor of distorting and devaluing scientific research. As a result, I have lost confidence in Professor Nutt's ability to be my principal adviser on drugs. I stress again that his dismissal is not a reflection on the work of the committee. I have since been in contact with the ACMD and have agreed to meet them shortly.
	There is no doubt in my mind that the advice of independent scientific advisers is essential to substantial aspects of the Government's work. I had the privilege of working with Professor Sir Liam Donaldson and Professor John Beddington during my time as Secretary of State for Health, and with Professor Sir David King when I was at the Department of Trade and Industry. The role of such advisers is to provide independent advice to Government based on the advisers' professional, scientific expertise. The role of Government is to consider that advice carefully, along with all other relevant factors, and for this House to endorse or reject those decisions where appropriate.

Chris Grayling: Let me start by reiterating my view that the Home Secretary's decision on Friday regarding Professor Nutt's future was the right one. Independent scientific advice is important, but those who take on formal roles with the Government have to be extremely cautious about the things that they say. Professor Nutt's comments earlier this year, comparing the risks of ecstasy with those of horse riding, were particularly ill judged. The issues that the council deals with are highly sensitive, and there are very divergent opinions out there, so there is a clear responsibility to act cautiously, and be mindful of the fact that messages given by official advisers can and will influence the behaviour of the public.
	However, I find it very surprising that, after the issue arose for the first time, last February, inadequate efforts appear to have been made to sort out how to deal with the sensitivities surrounding the council's work. There also appears to have been a complete breakdown of confidence between the Home Secretary and his advisers.
	How on earth has the Home Secretary managed to get himself into a position where he is having such an unseemly row with several leading scientists? Surely the Home Office did not do enough on the issues that emerged last February, after Professor Nutt's controversial comments, to ensure that the situation could not arise again. Did the Home Secretary personally meet Professor Nutt to try to ensure that the problems were not repeated? If so, what went wrong?
	The Home Secretary today mentioned an inquiry that was set up three weeks ago into the transparency and communication of the council's advice. Why did the Home Office wait nine months to set up such an inquiry after the issue first arose; and will the remit of that inquiry now change after what has happened? Finally, has he received from other members of the council any indications that they too intend to resign?

Alan Johnson: I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am not sure whether to or not, actually. He asked a number of questions. First, in February, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), wrote to Professor Nutt and made clear her dissatisfaction. Indeed, she expressed it to this House in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who is not in his place at the moment. She made it clear that she found Professor Nutt's behaviour unacceptable and did not expect it to happen again. In relation to the latest event, that behaviour has happened again. Professor Nutt is a man whom I respect, and he is very learned in his field, but, much to my regret, he published a paper without any notification to my Department, contrary to the code of practice under which he was appointed.

Alan Johnson: Yes, it is true, and the hon. Gentleman should wait his turn before interfering.
	The situation to which I just referred was a re-run of February, and I lost confidence. I did not have a meeting with Professor Nutt. I have had meetings with him, but, on that occasion, what needed to be done—my conveying my loss of confidence in him—needed to be done very quickly.
	There is no inquiry into the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; there is a Cabinet Office review of all non-departmental Government bodies. It used to be called the quinquennial review, and the current inquiry is happening just as a matter of course. It is not at all associated with these developments.

Alan Johnson: Piety and pomposity in equal measure. The Government, and I in particular, have listened to scientific advice. We took through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and there was an awful lot of science in that. We respect the views of scientists, and we have respected the views of scientists in every aspect of Government policy. Our principal advisers—whether Sir David King, John Beddington, Sir Liam Donaldson or Professor Nutt—have to be clear that when they are appointed to such a crucial and privileged job— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Home Secretary. I must say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that he is unduly overexcited this afternoon—uncharacteristically so. He has had his say— [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any help from hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. The hon. Gentleman has had his say with force, and he now needs to listen to the response from the Home Secretary.

Alan Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	When such esteemed professionals take on such a job, they have the Government's ear. They have a very important role in influencing the Government, and they must exercise it with care and caution. It would be quite wrong for advisers to undermine the Government as well as advise them.
	There is absolutely no question about Professor Nutt's right to express his views. He has a view on relative harms, which I do not share; he has a view on ecstasy, which I do not share; and he has a view on cannabis, which I and the majority of the House do not share. We are not talking about his right to express those views—he can do that. What he cannot do is confuse his role as a Government adviser and confuse it in the public mind by continually criticising the Government's framework, agreed by this Parliament, on tackling drugs. That is quite wrong. Sir David King did not do that when he recommended nuclear new build and the Government at that time did not agree to it. Sir Liam Donaldson has not done it on numerous occasions, including most recently when he proposed the introduction of unit pricing for alcohol; his proposal was produced, and it was public knowledge and transparent, but he did not go out and campaign against the Government for having refused to accept his policy.
	My final point is about what Professor Nutt did last week at King's college; incidentally, he was opposed by Professor Robin Murray, the head of psychiatric research, who takes a completely different view. What Professor Nutt did there was to criticise my predecessor, criticise the Prime Minister, criticise the Government and undermine the whole framework of Government policy. That was wrong, and as a result I have lost confidence in his ability to advise me.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Lots of Members wish to take part in this urgent question and very little time is available. As usual, I am looking for single, short supplementary questions without preamble—and, of course, for brief replies.

Alan Johnson: Yes, of course. I just quoted Professor Robin Murray, who believes—I think it is absolutely irrefutable—that the incidence of schizophrenia among the cannabis-smoking population is much higher than among the rest of the population. The causal link is increasingly clear and will, I am sure, become well established in a very short time.

Alan Johnson: The ACMD has done a good job, but of course it is the politicians' job to take into account a whole range of other views, not just the views of the scientific community but the views of— [ Interruption. ]

Alan Johnson: "Bogus views", says a Liberal Democrat Member.  [Interruption.] I was going to say the views of Parliament and the views of the public—if those are considered to be bogus, then I beg to differ.

Alan Johnson: No, it was not. He is entitled to speak on these issues in the public domain provided he is very clear that when he is speaking personally he is not speaking for the advisory council—that was certainly a pertinent point in his actions last week—and that if he is publishing any documents that in any way relate to the Government framework we get first sight of them, and that did not happen. There are a number of measures; one cannot lay out every single dot and comma of how a relationship should work. All I would say is that since 1971 this particular council, and its chairs, has worked very well for successive Governments, but the situation broke down on this occasion.

Alan Johnson: I would tell them what the leading Scottish drugs expert said this morning. Professor McKeganey, director of the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow university, who is the adviser on drugs to the Scottish National party Government in Scotland, said that while it is Professor Nutt's right as an academic to state his views on drug risks,
	"it is not his right to publicly undermine the decisions taken in relation to those drugs by ministers".
	Tell them that—it is perfect!

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: First of all, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, who died in Afghanistan on Saturday afternoon. As we come closer to Remembrance Sunday, we recognise that we owe him and all who have given their lives in the service of our country, and indeed everyone who has served in our armed forces, an immeasurable debt of gratitude.
	With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the European Council held in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. The Copenhagen climate change conference, for which the European Council was preparing, is now less than 40 days away. If carbon emissions are to be reduced and dangerous climate change averted, it is essential that we achieve an ambitious, comprehensive and binding agreement. Concluding a climate change deal will also drive investment in the low carbon economy and speed up world economic recovery. It will demonstrate that, as at the G20, the world can come together to address the great global challenges that we face together.
	In all of this, European Union leadership is fundamental, and now, as we approach Copenhagen, we need to drive forward the negotiations. Let me explain the urgency: to achieve the ambitious, effective and fair deal we need, it is not only developed countries which must act, but developing countries too must cut their emissions, reduce deforestation and be able to adapt to climate change. However, to enable them to make an offer by December, we as a European Union and as developed countries need to make a credible offer of financial assistance to them now. That is why earlier this year I proposed a long-term financial agreement between developed and developing countries. On Friday last week the European Council agreed to put on the table for Copenhagen three conditional offers. First, we agreed that Europe will contribute its fair share of the costs of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and we endorsed the European Commission view that these are expected to require—including the developing countries' own contributions—around £100 billion of private and public finance annually by 2020.
	Secondly, we set out our offer of public finance, agreeing that the overall level of the international public support required to make sure that a Copenhagen deal would benefit developing countries is estimated to lie in the range of €22 billion and €50 billion per year by 2020.
	Thirdly, we agreed that we should start support immediately to help developing countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change, contributing over the next three years, as a European Union, our fair share of a global fast-track initiative of €5 billion to €7 billion per year.
	These offers are rightly conditional on
	"other key players making comparable efforts",
	and on developing countries coming forward with substantial commitments on emissions reductions. Importantly, the Council also agreed that climate financing should
	"not undermine or jeopardize the fight against poverty and continued progress towards the Millennium Development Goals",
	and as the United Kingdom has proposed, the Council supported the establishment of a high-level body under the United Nations to provide an overview of international sources of climate financing.
	The European Union has already committed to cut our emissions by 30 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2020 as part of the right international agreement. Now these financial offers yet again show the determination of the whole European Union to ensure an ambitious climate change deal in Copenhagen.
	I can also report that the Council agreed that at the time of the next accession treaty, the protocol on the charter of fundamental rights will be applied to the Czech Republic. The next step is for the Czech constitutional court to make its ruling, which is rightly a matter for that court. I believe that we have made real progress, but it is only after we are sure that the treaty will come into force that a new European Commission will be appointed and the Council will be able to appoint its new president.
	Investment across Europe is forecast to contract by 10 per cent. this year with an expected loss of 8.5 million jobs. So at the European Council we had to decide first whether we should withdraw the fiscal stimulus now or maintain it until recovery was secured. We agreed unanimously—with no country dissenting—that
	"the supporting policies should not be withdrawn until the recovery is fully secured."
	Secondly, we had to decide whether to support public investment to maintain jobs in our economy or simply to let the recession take its course. The Council agreed unanimously to draw up a
	"European strategy for jobs and growth"
	with
	"continued political commitment to active labour market policies".
	We also agreed to take all necessary measures to
	"prevent high unemployment levels from becoming persistent."
	Thirdly, within our commitment to action for fiscal sustainability once the recovery is assured, we also agreed on the need for active industrial strategies to ensure
	"investment in the industries and jobs of the future",
	including low carbon technologies, advanced manufacturing and the digital economy.
	We stressed the importance of new measures that would
	"strengthen the internal market"
	and help growth in our services as well as our industries, and we affirmed the need to
	"promote increased trade".
	In addition to the completion of the Doha trade round next year, progress on bilateral trade deals and the recent trade agreement with Korea will create up to €20 billion in new export opportunities for firms across the European Union.
	We also agreed on reform of our banking systems, which includes putting in place new rules on capital and liquidity and bonuses. We also agreed to the continuation of work to strengthen the supervisory framework in the European Union, following the decisions taken at the Council in June.
	The Council also expressed its deep condolences to the families of those killed in last week's Taliban attack in Kabul. We reaffirmed our determination to fight terrorism in every part of the world and our resolve to see our commitments through in Afghanistan. And we emphasised our
	"confidence in the United Nations' leadership in coordinating the international community's efforts".
	We welcomed plans to
	"strengthen the civilian capacity of the state institutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan"—
	something that has been at the heart of British efforts in recent years. And the European Council expressed its concern about the security situation in Pakistan and reiterated Europe's readiness to assist further those displaced members of the Pakistan population.
	This afternoon, I have spoken to President Karzai and discussed the importance of moving quickly to set out a unity programme for the future governance of Afghanistan. Afghanistan now needs new and urgent measures for tackling corruption, strengthening local government and reaching out to all parts of Afghan society, and to give the Afghan people a real stake in their future. President Karzai agreed with me that Afghanistan now needs to strengthen its army and police numbers so that over time we can reduce the number of British troops.
	Finally on Iran, the Council expressed its
	"continuing concern about the situation of staff members of European Union missions and European citizens in Iran who recently have been on trial"
	and called, in support of our efforts, for
	"their prompt and unconditional release".
	We reaffirmed our
	"grave concern over the development of Iran's nuclear programme"
	and over Iran's
	"persistent failure to meet its international obligations."
	Once again, we have shown that by acting not alone but together, by working not against our mainstream European partners, but with them, and by putting Britain not on the fringes of Europe, but at the heart of Europe, Britain will be stronger, and Europe and Britain will be better off for that.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, killed in Afghanistan at the weekend? We owe a debt of gratitude to him and his family that we must never forget.
	In Afghanistan, now that Hamid Karzai has been confirmed as President, will the Prime Minister ensure that our support for the Karzai Government is not a blank cheque, but is contingent on serious progress being made on tackling corruption and upholding the rule of law? I want to ask the Prime Minister about the three main issues that were raised at the summit, climate change, the economy and the Lisbon treaty, and of course the two words that did not pass his lips—Tony Blair—because I cannot believe that the Prime Minister did not mention the one issue that seemed to be discussed wherever the leaders met: who should be the president of Europe. When considering his efforts to get Tony Blair the job, will most people in Britain not feel that it is completely unacceptable to see an unelected Prime Minister pushing for an unelected president, under a treaty that no one was allowed to vote for?
	Climate change is an area where the EU has a vital role to play. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it already has the powers that it needs to do so? There is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that adds anything to the EU's ability in this area. We welcome the commitments on carbon reductions, which were repeated at the summit, and the agreement on the €100 billion climate change fund. However, is it not the case that, despite that headline figure, there was no agreement on which European countries should pay what or by when, and that there was no firm commitment on the financial help to be given in the vital first three years after an agreement at Copenhagen is signed? The Swedish Prime Minister seemed to say that the European contributions would only be voluntary. Can the Prime Minister explain what that meant?
	Next, on the economy, the Prime Minister said at his press conference that there was a target of 10 million new jobs in Europe by 2014. Yet is it not the case that unemployment in the UK is now higher than it was in 1997, that 5 million people are on out-of-work benefits and that we have practically the highest youth unemployment in Europe? When he looked across the table at other EU leaders, did he recall that Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, France and Germany have already come out of recession, while Britain is still stuck in recession?
	Last Wednesday the Prime Minister said in this House:
	"We always said that we would come out of recession by the end of this year."—[ Official Report, 28 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 278.]
	That simply is not right. The forecast last autumn was for recovery in July. This June he said that Britain was
	"leading the rest of the world...out of recession."—[ Official Report, 3 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 268.]
	Will he now confirm that he got it completely wrong? While we are still in recession and other countries in the EU grow, will he also confirm that we are forecast to have practically the highest budget deficit in the whole of Europe next year?
	The summit conclusions endorse the ECOFIN statement that some countries should start to rebuild their public finances before 2011. As we are forecast to have the largest deficit in the whole of the OECD next year, should that not include us? Is it not the height of irresponsibility to sit there, as the leader of a lame-duck Government with deteriorating public finances, making pledge after pledge of further public spending and never saying anything about how he would deal with the crisis that he has created?
	The third issue is Lisbon and whether Europe needs a president. Does this debate not tell people all that they need to know about this Government? On the one hand, the Government went round saying that the treaty was just a tidying-up exercise, that there was no threat to national sovereignty and that the constitutional principle had been abandoned. But on the other, now we see the Prime Minister using all his offices to try to foist on Europe an executive president, with every intention of maximising the power of this new office. Is it not the case that the Government have not been straight on the treaty from start to finish?
	The only silver lining is that the bid to make Tony Blair president seems to have got into a bit of difficulty. Just a few days ago it was all going so well—

David Cameron: Who is my candidate? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman—never someone to go naked into the conference chamber.
	It was all going so well. As the Prime Minister left for Brussels, one British official was quoted as saying:
	"Tony Blair is the ideal candidate and he has a lot of support from all quarters...It is hard to see how he can be stopped."
	Shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister gave Tony Blair his personal backing. He threw the weight of the Government spin machine behind the Blair campaign. He broke into his schedule to appear before the Party of European Socialists. He told them all to "get real" and back Tony Blair. Ever since then, Tony Blair's campaign has been in free fall. Does that not demonstrate an eternal truth in British politics: that no cause is truly hopeless until it is endorsed by this Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: Once again, not one policy from the Opposition—it is all about personalities, never anything about policy. Let us first turn to Afghanistan. I did say earlier that I had talked to President Karzai and I did say to him that it was absolutely essential that he brought forward a unity programme that would include tackling corruption, strengthening the anti-corruption commission and taking action in individual areas, as well as bringing forward measures to strengthen local government. Of course, it is also important to us to build up the army from 90,000 now to 135,000 and to build up the police force, which is under 100,000 at the moment but is not sufficiently effective. So we have made the offer of further troops in Afghanistan conditional on Afghanistan showing that it can deal with its problems by making available new forces to be trained. At the same time, we await the decisions that will be made in other capitals about their contribution to the next stage of Afghanisation, which is increasing the number of Afghan troops but allowing them to be trained by forces from Britain and other countries.
	I am also grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about climate change. It is absolutely essential that we come together to make sure that we have a deal at Copenhagen, but European leadership and European unity in this are absolutely crucial. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the 2020 deal was a voluntary one. No, it is not. What is voluntary is the fast-track offer, which is the offer for the first three years according to which different European countries will choose to make their own contributions. But, again, a deal at Copenhagen is possible on finance only because Europe, as a European Union, has led the way in making that finance available.
	When it comes to the economy, I just have to say that the Government support fiscal action continuing. The right hon. Gentleman's party wants to withdraw the fiscal stimulus; I found no support in any country in Europe for withdrawing the fiscal stimulus now. His party has refused to back direct action using Government funds against unemployment; I found no party in Europe supporting that action either. His party, of course, has rejected many of the proposals that we have brought forward to deal with the recession; I find support for what we are doing in Europe, not support for the Conservative position.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Lisbon treaty and its ratification. We know the position of the Conservative party. Its leader said:
	"I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
	That is the position of the Conservative party— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Grayling contain yourself and try to exercise what self-restraint you can muster.

Gordon Brown: Whenever the word "Europe" is mentioned, the Opposition seem to become both extreme and wild in the actions that they take.
	The right hon. Gentleman is demanding a referendum on Lisbon. He is also—I see Back Benchers nodding, but not the Leader of the Opposition—demanding withdrawal from the social chapter and from European Union employment legislation, for which he would need the agreement of every one of the 26 other countries in the European Union. When the challenge is actually to secure growth, a climate change agreement and greater security from the European Union, is it going to be the best use of British influence to fight yesterday's battles the minute that the European Union has moved on from them when there is so much that we have to do to promote jobs, growth and trade? Is it really in the British national interest for the Conservative party to leave aside the alliances that it has had for years with the Christian Democrats in Germany and with President Sarkozy's party in France and to go into an alliance with a small group on the far right of Europe? The only reason the Conservatives are doing that is not in the national interest; they are putting their own party interests first and letting Euroscepticism take over their party. If they had really changed, they would have changed on Europe, and just as they are wrong on the recession, they are wrong on Europe as well.

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement and, of course, join him in sending expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, who tragically lost his life in Afghanistan this week.
	On Afghanistan, I note that the Prime Minister has already called President Karzai to congratulate him today on his unopposed continuation as president of that country, but surely the Prime Minister must recognise that Karzai simply cannot lead the dramatic change in direction that Afghanistan needs unless he commits now to work with his opponents, including Dr. Abdullah, to reach across ethnic and tribal divisions, stamp out corruption and start to build the legitimate institutions of central Government that Afghanistan so desperately lacks. The only way to do that is to commit now to a Government of national unity, and not the vaguer "unity programme" to which the Prime Minister just referred. What pressure are the Government bringing to bear on the Karzai Administration to make that happen? Or is the Prime Minister going to ignore the lack of legitimacy of the Karzai presidency and so risk failure for our brave troops as they try to prop up a Government in whom no one believes?
	Turning to the rest of the weekend's summit, the event was remarkable for two reasons: first, the discussion of the historic negotiations to be held in Copenhagen; secondly, the Government's misguided attempt to install Tony Blair as president of Europe. On Copenhagen, I welcome in principle the agreement on a funding package to help developing countries to fight climate change, but does the Prime Minister not see that the European Union's leadership in this area is in jeopardy while he and other leaders remain silent on how the cost of those proposals for adaptation and mitigation will be met in practice? What consideration has he given, for instance, to funding these commitments, in whole or in part, through a tradeable levy on maritime and aviation fuels? Is it not time we asked the aviation and shipping industries, which currently remain outside any international carbon fuel levy system, to pay for the damage that they cause to our environment by asking them to help to fund the fight against climate change in the developing world?
	On the second issue, I congratulate the Prime Minister on what turns out to have been a very cunning plan indeed to block the career aspirations of his predecessor. Does he agree, however, that the outcome of the discussions on Tony Blair has been to strengthen Britain's hand in arguing for the position that we should have been lobbying for in the first place—that of the High Representative? The president will be a glorified chairman, without his own resources, like an admiral without a navy, but the High Representative will have real powers—a general with troops, by comparison. So will the Prime Minister confirm that that is the job that we are now aiming for? Will he also give us an indication of who he would like to see in the role? We all know that he is pushing the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), but will he also look beyond his party ranks for other candidates—[Hon. Members: "Hurrah!"] No, no, no—that is for another day. I meant other candidates such as Lord Patten, who I am sure would be welcome on these Benches, or indeed Lord Ashdown.
	The Prime Minister referred to the summit's deliberations on banking. When I asked him a couple of weeks ago, he refused even to contemplate splitting up the banks, yet it is now clear that the European Commission is driving forward a process to break them up. Will he explain why, if he is willing to hive off huge divisions of the banks at the behest of Europe, he will not go the whole way and separate retail and investment banking completely? Why will he not split up the banks in the only way that would protect the public interest for good?

Gordon Brown: I do not think that there has ever been a more public application for a European job than what we have heard this afternoon. I could see the sense of opportunity in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues as they thought about his future prospects.
	On climate change, we have done more than any continent in the world to put forward proposals to sort what is a major problem that has to be addressed—namely, the financing gap. If developing countries are to be persuaded to make their use of energy more efficient, and if they are to be given help to deal with adaptation, it is essential that we put an offer on the table. So Europe has done three things: it has put an offer on the table relating to the overall funding required; it has now said what the public amount of that money would be; and it has said that it will be engaged in giving fast-track financing. So the process would start even before the new treaty would come in. We have also made it clear that Europe would pay its fair share of that money. We are therefore further on in pushing this forward than any other continent. We need other continents to respond to this but, most of all, we put this offer last week because we want the developing countries to consider what offers they can make to reduce their carbon emissions by the time they get to Copenhagen. Europe has taken the lead on this matter, and while the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to do more, he would be right if he said that Europe had taken the first steps towards the necessary financial agreement.
	On Afghanistan, I made it clear while talking to President Karzai twice this weekend that we are expecting him to take strong action on tackling corruption in his own country. This is what Afghanistan is about: it is not simply a country that requires national Government; it requires good effective local government and good provincial and district governors, and we expect the appointments of those people to be in line with the needs of the country. That includes tackling corruption and getting the economy and social facilities moving. For us, it is also crucial that the Afghan Government agree to train more troops and more police. The way that we will be able to deliver greater security to the Afghan people, to prevent a Taliban Government from returning to power and to prevent al-Qaeda from having a greater foothold in the country is by building up the strength of the Afghan forces.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these messages to President Karzai are very clear. He will, of course, make a speech tomorrow and then there will be his inauguration address. I hope that what we have asked him to do and what he has agreed to do—it is also what he wants to do—will be included in that address.
	As far as the European Council is concerned, let me be absolutely clear. The Lisbon treaty is not yet ratified. When it is ratified, there will have to be a meeting of the European Council and only at that stage will decisions be made about either the presidency of the Council or the future of the Commission. Unlike some Conservative Members, I hope that the Czech Government will be able to ratify the treaty very soon. I hope that we can see a decision from the Czech constitutional court tomorrow and were that to be the case, I would expect ratification to proceed very soon afterwards. We will then be able to make decisions on these important positions in the European Union as soon as possible. It is not in anybody's interest to have no Commission re-nominated for the future; we will be electing a president of the Council for the first time.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Geoffrey Robinson: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on a generally very satisfactory outcome to the European Council's meetings and may I press him on Afghanistan? How are we going to eliminate corruption there as long as the President—and, particularly his brother in Kandahar—remain in office? It is difficult, I know, but this has to be confronted one way or another.

Gordon Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a big interest in this matter. It is very important to appoint district and provincial governors who will take action to build up facilities in health, education and schools in the areas for which they are responsible, but it is also important to prevent drug barons and those who would practise corrupt activities from either seizing power or from influencing those who have power. Therefore, part of the programme for Afghanistan must be to match anti-corruption activity at the centre with ensuring that local government is in the hands of those who are responsible to the people and not connected to the country's drug overlords.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Prime Minister please confirm that the annual payment of between €22 billion and €50 billion to developing countries will be additional money, and that existing EU budgets will not be raided?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is now in the mainstream of the Conservative party. His policies in favour of withdrawing and relegating the European Union in regard to its relationship with Britain are well known. I must say to him, however, that when the new treaty was drawn up and agreed, the first words of the communiqué were that the constitutional concept had been abandoned. He should recognise that the Lisbon treaty met all our negotiating requirements, and that that is why we were able to recommend it to the House of Commons.

Humfrey Malins: One of the reasons we are in Afghanistan is, I think, to help to slow down and preferably stop the flow of heroin on to our streets which causes so much misery and crime, but I believe that that flow is still very fast indeed. Can the Prime Minister give us some sort of progress report, and hopefully some optimism?

Gordon Brown: The number of poppy-free provinces in Afghanistan is, I think, now 20. The hon. Gentleman may have looked at the initiative we undertook in Helmand this year. Under the Department for International Development, we persuaded large numbers—30,000, I think—of farmers to switch from poppy production to wheat, and they have, of course, benefited from the high price of wheat during the course of the year. We are proposing to do even more next year in persuading more farmers to resist the temptations of growing poppies and at the same time getting them support so that they can grow grain. This is one of the best ways to advance our policy to rid the parts of Afghanistan for which we have some responsibility of as much of the heroin trade as possible.

Clive Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the issue of the use of hydrofluorocarbons? It is essential that we deal with them alongside dealing with CO2 as part of a Europe-wide agreement. I urge my right hon. Friend to discuss this matter with the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Climate Change to ensure that we get Europe-wide agreement on a reduction. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give a detailed answer on that now, but I do want to draw it to his attention and urge him to discuss it.

Gordon Brown: Is it not typical of the Conservative party that its Members only ask questions about personalities? The position of the presidency of the Council has not yet been set up and the Lisbon treaty has not yet gone through. Once the Lisbon treaty has gone through and has been ratified—as I hope it will—we can discuss these matters.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend puts her case with great force. I am told that livestock is on the climate change agenda. We will have to make progress in a large number of areas. It was mentioned earlier that we have to make progress in the maritime and aviation areas, and we must also make progress in deforestation—or, rather, reforestation. All these issues are part of the climate change agreement.

Gordon Brown: Before the original election in Afghanistan, I and others were party to persuading a number of countries to send additional troops to Afghanistan—that happened in a number of cases within the European Union. The issue now, which was raised by the McChrystal report, is what numbers different countries will be prepared to offer following the elections. That is a matter for discussion at NATO in the next few days. I believe not only that we will have proposals arising from McChrystal very soon, but that we have already taken the right decision, which is that we are prepared to put additional forces in, subject to the conditions that I laid down in Parliament: that Afghan forces are available to be trained; and we have an agreement among the coalition.

Andrew Robathan: Does the Prime Minister think that people would be more likely to believe what he has to say about matters such as climate change if he had kept his promise to have a referendum on the EU constitution—now renamed the "Lisbon treaty"? Could he tell us what his moral compass tells him about that broken promise?

Peter Bone: What keeps the Prime Minister awake more at night: my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) becoming Prime Minister or Tony Blair becoming president of Europe?

Gordon Brown: I sleep very well at night. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be in Britain's national interests to have a former Prime Minister of our country as president of the European Council. I think that the Conservatives are making a mistake if they want to send out a message to the rest of Europe that they do not want a British person to hold this job. Presumably they want someone from another country to hold this job—presumably someone who also holds a federalist position in Europe. The Conservatives should go back to the drawing board on this and think again.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for his point of order and for advanced notice of it. Sadly, I must reiterate a central point in this Chamber: that the timing of the release of Government reports is a matter for the Government. The hon. Gentleman has registered his serious discontent with what he regards as an unacceptable delay. The point is on the record, and it will have been heard by Ministers and indeed by others.

Henry Bellingham: First, I declare an interest as a barrister who, during my time at the Bar, did a certain amount of chancery law. I also remember being taught the law of perpetuities and accumulations both at university and at law school. It is obviously an extremely complicated subject and one that at first looked as though it lent itself to the new procedure that the Minister talked about—the fast-track procedure for non-controversial Bills. During its progress through the other place, however, the Bill attracted a great deal of interest and was subject to a great deal of very useful scrutiny. To say that it is a non-controversial Bill is probably a mistake, because it threw up a number of significant controversies.
	I want to ask the Minister whether, with the paucity of business going through the House, the Bill could have been subject to the normal procedure. There has been a lack of Bills going through this House during this Session, and it would have been quite easy to have fitted in the Bill, which would have given everyone a chance to conduct more conventional scrutiny and, above all, more opportunities for different organisations to contact people about the Bill.
	I regret the fact that the Law Commission has not briefed hon. Members on the Bill. I also want to flag up the fact that the explanatory notes are meant to explain the Bill, not tie up the reader in knots. It is a pity that the explanatory notes were not a little more user-friendly, and perhaps lessons can be learned from that. My submission is that the absence of a law degree would make the notes almost impossible to understand. However, we are where we are.
	The Opposition wish the Bill well. It goes back a long way to the 1993 report by the Law Commission and its consultation paper No. 130, which was published in that year. The Law Commission then brought out a report in 1998, "The rules against perpetuities and excessive accumulations". We then had the Government consultation of 2002 and, in due course, this Bill, which has been a long time coming. Why did Ministers not get on with the Bill and push it through at an earlier stage? There have been occasions over the past few years when it could easily have been brought before the House in its normal, conventional format.
	The Bill is important, because trusts are very important mechanisms. More than 200,000 taxpaying trusts are in existence. There are many other trusts, obviously including a large number of charitable trusts. It has been reported recently that there are roughly 500,000 millionaires in this country. Many of them will want to tie up their wealth and estates for the next generation, and having the opportunity to do so through trusts is a very important mechanism that should be available to people. However, it is also important that those trusts are as user-friendly as possible. Furthermore, at a time when capital is much more footloose in the context of a global economy, those trusts must be as flexible as possible, so they must change with the times. That is why the Bill is certainly a move in the right direction, and why it is absolutely right that the Government have considered perpetuities and accumulations.
	On perpetuities, there was a long-standing common law rule that a testator could not tie up an estate in perpetuity. The so-called dead hand rule came in, and common law did very well in that respect. It laid down that it was possible to limit the extent to which the dead hand of a deceased settlor could control the devolution of their property into the future. In other words, the rule against perpetuities exists to prevent both those who are over-enthusiastic in their attempts to keep property in their families and the downright eccentric from trying to control for ever the property that was theirs during their lifetimes.
	The common law, which had been around for many years, was updated by the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, which introduced the wait-and-see mechanism, which was tied to the new 80-year rule. But, of course, there were problems, not least because the perpetuities rule was extended to commercial transactions and, in particular, to the creation of future easements, options, rights of pre-emption and other controls for the sale and disposition of land. The overwhelming conclusion was that those commercial transactions should be cut loose from the rule. So I congratulate the Minister and her team on introducing measures that take such transactions outside the perpetuities rule.
	The other problem was that the common law and the 1964 Act, working together, led to some confusion—hence the substantial support for abolishing the rule completely—but a fair compromise would be to restrict it to wills and trusts and to apply a 125-year period. Such a period is pretty well the longest life imaginable, plus the period of minority for the next generation. Some critics might say that that is too long, but it is worth pointing out that 9,000 centenarians now live in the United Kingdom—a ninetyfold increase since 1911. The number of centenarians has increased by 7 per cent. since 2005. At the current rate of expansion, the UK's centenarian population will reach 40,000 by 2030. Indeed, in the UK, the over-90s are the fastest growing segment of the population.
	It is interesting to note that Lord Hodgson explained in another place that he had spoken to a gerontologist who pointed out two rather stark facts: first, as of this moment, three quarters of the people in the world who have ever reached the age of 65 are alive and kicking today; and secondly, someone living today will live to the age of 200. I hope to goodness that it is no one in the House. Furthermore, given that fact, it is perhaps a reasonable compromise to set the rule at 125 years.
	Turning very quickly to accumulations, the rule was originally based on the Accumulations Act 1800, which was a direct response to the Thellusson case, which I want to mention briefly. Peter Thellusson died in 1797 and left the staggering sum of £600,000, equivalent to more than £200 million today. His will made it clear that all the income had to be rolled up and accumulated for ever, or at least for the whole life of the last survivor of his descendants living at his death. This formula could have taken us up to the 1950s. By then, with accumulation and compound growth, the sum could have increased to £20 billion-odd.
	It is interesting to note that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) tells me that he is a direct descendant of Peter Thellusson, and if the fund had been allowed to accumulate over all those years, he might well have been a beneficiary. In fact, the children and grandchildren of Peter Thellusson would not have been able to benefit from his will, because of the accumulation on which he insisted in his will, which is why the law was changed—in this case, retrospectively—so that there could not be accumulation in perpetuity.
	That was a sensible piece of legislation and stood the test of time, but we have moved on to a global economy and towards the concept of total return on trusts, which means that the trustees look not only at income and capital growth, but at income and capital growth combined. That is why the pressure has grown over the years for the rule against accumulations to be abandoned. The right decision was made, because it was time to get rid of it.
	There are two issues on which I want the Minister to comment, if she can. The first relates to powers of appointment, which were discussed in the other place. Numerous experts there favoured applying the new law on accumulations to the exercise of existing special powers of appointment in order to achieve greater flexibility in the management of trusts—a pragmatic approach. As I understand it—the Minister might be able to confirm this—following the amendments in the other place, there will be no retrospective element to the new rule on accumulations, so the powers of appointment will not be able to be exercised in terms of the new law and will have to be exercised on the basis of the existing law at the time.
	The other point on accumulations relates to charities. The Government were right to put in place a clause that states that charities will not be able to accumulate for more than 21 years, but they will be able to accumulate for 21 years. For charities that are building up sums of money for a particular purpose, accumulating and rolling over the income makes a great deal of sense.
	I have one technical point on commencement, which did not lend itself to an amendment. Clauses 15(1) and (2) cover commencement. They make the pre-Act law apply to any will executed before commencement day, even if it takes effect on or after the commencement day—that is, because a testator dies on or after commencement day. However, there is a rule in law that if a codicil is made to a will which makes some reference to the will, the will is republished, with the consequence that it is treated as made on the date of the codicil, unless that would defeat the testator's intentions. How would case law apply to a will made before the Act comes into force but republished after it does so? That is not clear. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that point or write to me if that is easier.
	As I have pointed out, trust law in this country is fairly complicated. Many have argued that we should have gone for a consolidating measure and brought the whole of trust law together. However, that would have taken a much bigger Bill and much more time. This is a small measure, but it is nevertheless welcome. It will make life easier for practitioners. There will be a problem while three parallel systems are running—the old common law, the 1964 Act and new Act, if the Bill becomes an Act, which I hope it will. That will produce some challenges, but the Bill will simplify matters and update trust law.
	The Government were wise to bring forward the Bill, although I note that among the affected trusts are many that cover the great landed and ducal estates of this country. It is somewhat ironic that a new Labour Government, in their dying days, should make life easier for the great ducal estates in this country. I applaud the Government for that, because they have been pragmatic, but the fact should be noted. They have come a long way, and that is why we support this limited measure.
	It is a pity that we did not have the Law Commission briefing, and that, in some ways, a very complicated Bill was subject to the fast-track process. It has worked out all right, but the question is whether we should use it again for Bills that are controversial in terms of practitioners, if not politically. Perhaps we should think again about using the fast-track procedure for such Bills. If a Bill were introduced to reform an archaic statute, one very simple Bill, using that procedure, would make sense. Having put those reservations on the record, however, we support the Bill, thank the Minister and her team for bringing it forward and wish it well.

David Howarth: I was wondering whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) was attempting to be the last person in this country's history to be subject to the old perpetuity rule of lives in being plus 21 years. I must say that I found the explanatory notes to be perfectly clear and that the Law Commission briefing is in the commission's own reports, which on this subject are exemplary.
	I, too, thank the Government, and the Law Commission, in particular, for bringing forward the Bill. It has been quite a long time in the making, and the commission members who are most responsible for it are no longer members. Owing to that, I shall mention one by name, Mr. Charles Harpum, who did an extraordinary amount of work on the Bill and has produced legislation that, in its mechanism, will last a long time. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned the people who taught in this area of law, so I should add that I was taught by Mr. Harpum himself, in his first year as a lecturer, which now seems a very long time ago.
	I support what the Minister said about the new procedure in the House of Lords. It seemed to work very well, and it helped us to expedite procedure in this House, too. I hope that this legislation, along with the new Act on Law Commission reports, will lead to a better way of moving the commission's reports through this and the other House and into legislation. More controversial reports will need fuller discussion, but Bills such as the one before us, which are clear but technical improvements to the law, should go through as quickly as they possibly can.
	I make only two comments on the Bill's subject matter. First, on the length of the perpetuity period, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk had one substantive point, which was that, with the advance of medical science, at some point people will live longer than 125 years. When we reach that point, however, we will not have to revise the whole structure of the law—only the number of years.
	Secondly, on accumulations, I want to put on the record that throughout our discussions on the Bill, the Government have been very clear that the provisions on accumulations for charities are compatible with the total return approach. There was some worry in the sector about that, but the Government have been very clear, for which I thank them. I thank them also for the Bill, and I wish it Godspeed in passing into law.

Bridget Prentice: I thank the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) for their support for the Bill both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge, who succinctly put to bed—I hope—some concerns that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk had. Indeed, if we live more than 125 years—God preserve us—the period in the legislation will have to be changed. I was also pleased that the hon. Member for Cambridge confirmed again that charities have nothing to fear from what the Bill wants to do.
	I want to respond to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk on the issue of the procedure. The fact is that the Bill followed the usual procedure for Law Commission Bills in this House—it went to a Second Reading Committee under Standing Order No. 59. The new procedure in the other place will help to keep what we might refer to as "lawyers' law" up to date and perhaps even more understandable than it normally is to most of us.
	I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman felt that the explanatory notes were too hard to understand. Officials work very hard to make them as clear and simple as possible, and we will continue to try to make them so, in the plainest possible English. He asked why it took so long to bring the Bill forward. As he will know, Governments of all colours have found it difficult to introduce Law Commission Bills, but today I would like to accentuate the positive in saying that I hope that more Bills will come forward in this fashion.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked particularly about retrospectivity and accumulations, and whether the new law will apply to existing trusts. That issue was debated in detail in the other place. The Bill will not apply new law on accumulations to existing trusts as a result of the amendments in the other place. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman on that matter. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned wills that were made before but that take effect after the Bill is enacted. The Bill will apply to a will if the will is both created and takes effect after the Bill is enacted. The law relating to republication will apply as it does at present, so the Bill does not change that. I hope that I have responded to all the hon. Gentleman's concerns. If I have missed anything, I shall respond to him in writing.
	The Bill, although technical, is important. It brings the law up to date, and I am pleased that we have been able to produce a Law Commission Bill under the new procedure. I am also grateful for the support that the Bill has received from across the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will have looked at a range of issues. He does not, I believe, support some of the measures that we have taken on antisocial behaviour. I think that any measures to drive it down, and to drive perceptions down, are important. He will know that we are going to drive down still further some of these activities and perceptions where there are particularly high levels of antisocial behaviour. I will ensure that we continue to do that for as long as I hold this post, because it is vital that individuals whose lives are blighted by antisocial behaviour have not only the long-term remedies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) but strong enforcement, strong action and help and support to drive it down still further.
	I am candid enough to say to the House that antisocial behaviour remains a problem in several areas in relation to the work that we are doing. In the Place survey undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government—until recently that survey was ably examined and looked after by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears)—20 per cent. of people still felt that there were high levels of antisocial behaviour in their areas. That is why, whatever we have done to date in working tirelessly to provide an effective response in tackling antisocial behaviour—and we have undertaken a considerable amount of activity—there is more that can and should be done. Action needs to be taken to strengthen the response across all areas.
	On 13 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House a new impetus for tackling antisocial behaviour. That extra action covers activity in some key areas, and it supports not only the work done to date but the preventive agenda referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. The action that my right hon. Friend announced includes practical support for victims of antisocial behaviour; re-emphasising to our colleagues in the police the need for a strong police response when it occurs; looking to establish across the country as a whole minimum standards of response and service for victims and individuals who have to deal with antisocial behaviour; considering action—this is particularly important—against those who flout the law, especially those who flout antisocial behaviour orders; and the action that we are taking focused on areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour.

James Brokenshire: The Minister mentioned as one of those five points raising standards locally and the Home Office essentially setting national standards. How does he intend to follow that through? Will there be more inspection or regulation sitting behind it?

David Hanson: The intention is not to drive forward regulation or set central standards. We want to examine particular matters and encourage action plans in particular areas, with financial support, by 2010. The key points of the minimum standards will be taking reported cases of antisocial behaviour seriously, recording and investigating them, keeping victims informed of actions taken, telling the community on a monthly basis what action has been taken to tackle antisocial behaviour, providing practical support for victims and ensuring that all agencies—the police, local councils and others—link together so that there is effective management.
	There have been occasions when agencies have had issues reported to them and taken an interest but have not had the co-ordinated response that is necessary to tackle them. We are challenging all community departments in local areas to sign up to minimum standards by March 2010, when we will review the information and ensure that action is taken.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Housing is central to some aspects of the antisocial behaviour that we face. Although local authorities have a responsibility for housing, a lot of the housing in my constituency is provided through housing associations. It is important that they are involved in establishing minimum standards. From my perspective, the key is to ensure that there is an effective link between neighbourhood policing and other agencies so that they come to locally acceptable solutions.
	Further to the question that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) asked, we need to make the standards that are set available to the public, who will have recourse to the local government ombudsman if they have a complaint. We will expect as a matter of course every police force and local authority and, taking the point of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), every social landlord to seek at least to meet the minimum standards expected by the public and ensure that they keep on track.
	We acknowledge the importance of all the issues that I mentioned. If I discuss each in turn you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cover a number of matters in our latest proposals. First, we have always acknowledged that supporting victims is crucial. It is self-evident to Members that a victim may be a victim for the first time and may not know their way around the system, so we want to ensure that the victim is at the heart of what we do. Victims are often too frightened to give evidence against a perpetrator because they are scared about the impact on their communities, and as a result they often do not come forward.
	One step that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in October was an additional £2.8 million of funding to support local victims champions in all targeted areas, by which I mean areas with a very high level of antisocial behaviour, with a view to extending the program still further when we discuss the provisions of the White Paper later this year. That effectively means that we will provide services to support victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour to bring cases forward in magistrates courts and throughout the process.
	As I mentioned earlier, we have also promised tougher action on those who breach their ASBOs. We will conduct a review of how that is working in practice, involving both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Attorney-General, and we will shortly issue new guidance on what local authorities should do when an ASBO is broken and needs to be followed up on, to ensure that those who have been given that community-based penalty see it through.
	We have a renewed focus on advice on driving up prosecutions. Going back to some of the points that have been made so far today, I can say that we are also looking at local service standards, so that the public know what to expect when antisocial behaviour occurs in their areas; what the minimum standards are for responses; and what support is available to communities when such action is taken. I want to leave that, in large parts, to local discretion—referring to the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch from the Opposition Front Bench—but I want to ensure that we have those measures in place. We will be reviewing what local authorities say they are putting in place by March 2010 and will hold them to it. We will also expect the community to hold them to it.

Graham Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way a second time. Does he agree that it is important that he works closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the burden and level of proof are such that we can get convictions in some of those cases? Very often, targeting in the CPS means that it has to be almost 100 per cent. certain before it will take a case, which is rare. Will he ensure that cases are taken on the balance of probabilities, rather than the CPS feeling target-bound and not taking other cases?

David Hanson: That is very important. Very often, the police, people who live on an estate or in a community, and the local council will know where there is a problem, and they must produce evidence to that effect. I take what my hon. Friend says. Again, as part of our review, we will be looking at the guidance we issue not only on breaches but in relation to prosecutions generally, because it is important that action is taken. That is what people expect and what decent people want in their communities. They want action to solve the problem, not necessarily, with due respect, words to go around the problem.
	Effectively, we will also be providing—this is key to the drive announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 13 October—specific support to areas where the perception of antisocial behaviour is particularly high. We have identified a number of key areas, including Salford and Doncaster, where there will be additional help and support. We regard that as critical in helping to drive down perceptions where they are extremely high. The extra support will be part of the action plan that is being drawn up. The plan is time-limited to March of next year to ensure that action is taken now in such key areas.
	Linked to that is the question of the policing pledge and the policing White Paper, which will come out shortly. When that is produced—it will hopefully be later this month or, at the latest, early December—we will again be taking some clear next steps regarding what we can expect from the public and neighbourhood policing, with support from police officers. That will include a continued commitment to having a dedicated neighbourhood policing team in every community. Neighbourhood teams will cost resources, which is investment to which we are committed—not only for next year but to looking at in detail for future years.
	The White Paper will also include measures to enhance the focus of local neighbourhood policing, through working with partners and giving extra support to partnerships. That will ensure that victims, offenders and neighbourhoods are the focus of police activity, which is a positive step. From my perspective, identifying antisocial behaviour issues locally with the community is key.
	None of that commenced on 13 October following my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement. This Government have been committed to tackling antisocial behaviour since they came into existence in 1997. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created crime and disorder partnerships, and community safety partnerships in Wales. They are key when it comes to the Government looking at what agencies across government need to be brought together to fight crime and antisocial behaviour.
	The legislation also introduced the ASBO, which has given practitioners vital powers for dealing with serious antisocial behaviour. Some 14,972 ASBOs were issued between 1 April 1999 and 31 December 2007. In due course, ASBOs have changed the behaviour of many individuals who have behaved antisocially, and given confidence to the community in dealing with such behaviour.

David Hanson: I accept that the breaching of ASBOs has been a concern. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair man, and I hope that he will accept that the Home Secretary's announcement on 13 October of extra steps to tackle breaches of ASBOs was a recognition that that number is unacceptable. If people are given a punishment, it must be seen through. Restraining orders in relation to a particular community must be enforced strongly by the courts, the police and the community at large. I accept that the breach rate is challenging, but I am convinced that we will take further action to deal with those individuals in a positive and practical way in the future.
	Practitioners tell us that communities are given respite from the misery of nuisance and loutish behaviour by ASBOs, and we know that they work. Antisocial behaviour is a challenging and complex matter, without a one-size-fits-all solution. ASBOs are important, but they are one of a range of tools that we have used to support the development of policy to tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms. Members will know that, from crack house closure orders to dispersal orders and, most recently, premise closure orders, we have given a range of powers that are now being exercised by local police through the courts to ensure that innumerable people in communities across the country are spared the difficulties caused by individual properties, licensed premises or individuals causing concern.
	To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, enforcement is only one aspect of the work that we need to undertake. We need to ensure that the underlying problems that lead to antisocial behaviour are tackled at their roots. That is why we have undertaken action with perpetrators and their families, with the level of support needed to tackle the underlying causes of that behaviour. We have, for example, issued individual support orders, helping young people on ASBOs, and parenting orders, helping parents to tackle issues that cause problems or make them worse. In the last five years alone, we have issued 43,000 acceptable behaviour contracts, 12,600 parenting contracts and 3,000 parenting orders, and we have closed down 1,700 crack houses across England and Wales. That shows not only an element of enforcement, but recognises that we need to deal with dysfunctional families, in which one generation after another is not learning the basics of a decent society.

David Hanson: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is clear that those people involved in antisocial behaviour are often involved in a range of other criminal activity. In his response to the debate, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), will touch on that issue and give some real facts and figures. I am aware that considerable resources are going to local forces from POCA, but it is an issue that we need to look at. From my perspective—and my constituency contains families who cause difficulties, as every constituency does—the Proceeds of Crime Act and the confiscation of assets has been a key determinant in people desisting from this behaviour, and visible punishment has an effect on the community at large.
	We have also had two significant and successful campaigns—the Together and Respect programmes—that have raised the profile of the action that we are taking on antisocial behaviour, brought practitioners together and contributed more to tackling those problems. To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made—a point that I will refer to regularly—we have also introduced a range of early intervention initiatives aimed at preventing antisocial behaviour in the first place. Although not targeted solely against individuals who are involved in antisocial behaviour, schemes such as Sure Start and "Positive activities for young people" are part of the positive community building to which this Labour Government have been committed, to tackle deprivation, give respect and ensure that individuals are supported through their lives.

David Lepper: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for missing the first part of his speech, but I was serving on a Statutory Instrument Committee with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. My right hon. Friend talked about community activity. Does he recognise the important role that local action teams play at the neighbourhood level in bringing together local residents, their councillors, representatives of the council and the police to pinpoint where the problems are and to find solutions to deal with them?

David Hanson: Not only did my hon. Friend miss the beginning of my speech, but I nearly missed it myself, because this debate started so quickly. Local action is vital. I mentioned earlier that the new drive initiated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary includes efforts to look at local action plans that not only have the police on board, important though they are, but the local council, as well as enjoying the support of local tenants and residents' associations, the local councillor and, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, local housing providers and social landlord. They all have a role, not only in standing up and saying, "This is not acceptable," but in delivering plans that help to support the development of local activity in due course.

Jeremy Wright: May I ask the Minister to add something else to the list, namely schools? He is rightly focusing on dealing with young people and giving them the right messages about the consequences of their antisocial behaviour. However, must it not also be the case that bad behaviour must have consequences in schools and that young people should understand that clearly? Is it not important to look at exclusions and ensure that head teachers have the authority to exclude without appeals panels putting children straight back into schools, thereby undermining the head teacher's authority and teaching young people that they can get away with bad behaviour, which is why, I would suggest, the rates at which antisocial behaviour orders are broken are so high, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) mentioned?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman invites me to stray into other areas of departmental policy. I accept—and I give him the assurance—that schools play a central role in instilling discipline. However, I would also want a framework that ensures that when children are excluded, for whatever reason, there is a proper plan for that, so that young people do not have greater problems outside school than the strong discipline in school would pose for them. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will examine his comments on that issue and help him in his winding-up speech.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Part of the work that we are doing on neighbourhood policing is about strengthening and embedding those links still further.
	I also refer right hon. and hon. Members to the youth crime action plan, which was launched in 2008. The plan is a tripartite scheme, involving not just the Home Office, which is my current Department, but the Ministry of Justice, where I was previously the Minister with responsibility for prisons, probation and youth justice, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, to look at making that link between schools, justice and activities for young people. That way we can ensure that we have not only tough enforcement and non-negotiable support where necessary, but a heavy focus on prevention.
	I refer again to the significant investment made to date in family intervention projects, which also touches on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned about ensuring that the multiple problems faced by the most chaotic families, such as drink, drugs, domestic violence and illiteracy—problems that cannot be separated from their communities and which must be dealt with as a whole—are dealt with through added investment. Colleagues will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced a major expansion of family intervention projects to ensure that we provide the means not only for enforcement but deep work with chaotic and dysfunctional families.

Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that however important rehabilitation is, and it is important, there should, where it is justified, also be an element of punishment? Does he share my amazement at the fact that an 18-year-old who pleaded guilty to an offence in Chelmsford court last week and who asked the court to take into account 645 other offences, which involved stealing more than £1 million of goods, simply got 150 hours of community service and was rehoused with his partner, moving from the town where he lives to Chelmsford?

David Hanson: You will excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I cannot comment on an individual case that I know nothing about. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but a punishment based in the community can sometimes be more effective than a short prison sentence. My experience—I know that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) shares this view—is that short prison sentences can often be much more damaging in the longer term and lead to much more crime in the longer term than a properly targeted, focused community-based sentence. I cannot comment on the individual case, because I do not know it, but, self-evidently, somebody who goes to prison for 12 weeks might lose any job or home that they have, might not get off the drugs or alcohol that are leading them into particular problems and will, ultimately, not benefit from their time in prison. However, a strong community-based sentence that provides support in the community to tackle issues with drugs or alcohol and which gives people the opportunity to work or live locally can be effective in the longer term in reducing levels of crime.
	As a whole, the Government's approach has been successful. Hon. Members would expect me to say that, but it is not just me saying that—three independent reports have told us that that is the case. The National Audit Office report found that two thirds of perpetrators stopped behaving antisocially after one intervention and that nine out of 10 ceased after three interventions. The British crime survey has shown that the negative perception of these issues is falling. If we look at the broader picture in our communities, we see that people are safer than they were 12 years ago, difficult though some of the challenges are. The chances of being a victim of crime are historically low and crime has fallen by 39 per cent. since May 1997. The recent data also show that, on tackling antisocial behaviour issues, confidence in our police has risen in the past year alone, from 45 per cent. in March 2008 to 50 per cent.
	The neighbourhood policing role—this goes back to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—means that we now have 16,000 community support officers, who were an invention of this Government. They not only support police on the ground, but help, particularly in local communities, to deliver a visible response and an embedded police presence in the neighbourhoods that need it most. Indeed, I have been out with local community support officers and I have looked at these issues in detail to see where we are on improving standards. We have provided some of the tools and powers that people want, but as I have said in the debate, there is more that we need to do. We have funded an action line, a website and help and support to practitioners to deal with the issues that I have mentioned.
	I want to make a final mention of the youth crime action plan—a particularly important piece of work that is ongoing for the community at large. On enforcement and prevention, the youth crime action plan has been backed by £100 million of additional funding, which has been put into selected areas across the country, where offending rates are highest. That has supported a range of activity across the board to help reduce antisocial behaviour.
	On Friday night last week—the night before Halloween —I visited the city of Liverpool, which is the city of my birth, to look at a particular operation in the Clubmoor and Norris Green area, which provides real help and support through interventions to provide Friday and Saturday night activities for young people. On Friday, through the youth crime action plan, the police supported the hiring of a cinema where they showed a film free of charge. Individuals were attracted into the cinema, rather than being on the streets causing mischief. We had an extra policing presence on the streets of Liverpool last Friday night. We had social workers and youth workers from across the city working together to look at vulnerable individuals who might have been drunk or involved in drug-related or other activity. Those youth crime action plan activities are funded by Government money that is being invested on behalf of the taxpayer to prevent crime. Such resources need to continue to be provided, and they will form part of the activities in our campaign to show that public investment is often good investment that makes a real difference on the ground in communities, as I saw on Friday night in Liverpool.

Alistair Burt: Before the Minister leaves that subject—to which I am sure others will refer later—may I point out that, if we are going to get youngsters actively engaged in voluntary activities such as those, we have to allow the adults the opportunity to work with them? The pressures of extra regulation are making it more difficult for adults to get involved in this way; they feel that it is getting harder to take part in such activities because they are constantly being checked up on. There is a relationship between the two. Will the Minister say something about that before he sits down?

David Hanson: It is extremely important that we have standards in place to ensure that we do not have individuals who could put young people at risk. The Government's response to this question is the direct result of the Bichard report, following the Soham inquiry, and the Magee review. These dealt with the implications of people working with young children. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has asked for a review on this matter, and we are looking at how we can get the balance right. It is important to do that, so that individuals can help and support young people while we ensure, as far as we can, that we eliminate the risk of other activity.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Young people—believe it or not, I was once one myself—want to be able to play football, or to get involved in a gang in a positive way. I was involved in a gang when I was a young person. They want to have the freedom to do things in a reasonable way and to enjoy the community, and we need to look at where their activities split and start to do damage to the community and become a negative force. The work that we are trying to do, in enforcement and in prevention, has that aim. Yes, the youth crime action plan, the diversionary activities and the support that we are giving to communities involves Government money—taxpayers' money—going into those areas, but that is all being done in a positive manner to ensure that we can provide local alternative activities.
	I have spoken for some 40 minutes now, and I want to give colleagues from across the Floor an opportunity to raise issues on the subject. The Government have a strong story to tell. We announced new measures in October this year, and we are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. Every citizen has the right to enjoy their life, free from the burdens of antisocial behaviour that can damage communities. I look forward to hearing the debate, and to hearing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary winding up later this evening.

James Brokenshire: I welcome this debate on antisocial behaviour—a problem that blights too many communities across the country and one that has a marked impact on the quality of people's lives, the confidence people have in their own communities and their sense of safety. The Minister himself mentioned these factors in his opening comments.
	I need to take the Minister to task, however, over what he said in that opening statement about the Government's sustained or continued approach. Given that on the Home Secretary's own admission, the Government have been "coasting on" for some time, that amounts to a serious indictment of their record on an issue that we were told—we have been again this afternoon—was a priority. It all seems a far cry from the promise of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) when he said:
	"We should and will be unremitting in our efforts to drive up standards of behaviour and enforce a culture of respect, for the benefit of all."
	Yet we know that the Government's own neighbourhood crime adviser, Louise Casey acknowledged that the Government had "let people down" on crime and antisocial behaviour. If today's newspaper reports are true, Sara Payne, the Government's victims champion will warn later this week that the Government need to take antisocial behaviour "a lot more seriously".
	Apparently, the current Home Secretary believes that tackling antisocial behaviour has been a good idea that the Government had simply stopped talking about—hence today's debate to talk about antisocial behaviour. It puts me in mind of the comments in the "Respect Handbook", which notes:
	"Communicating action taken is as important as taking action".
	In some ways, the problem has been too much talking and not enough doing.

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on action, why does he propose to cut the Home Office budget by £160 million, getting rid of 3,500 police officers, which will mean far less action on the streets of Britain under a Tory Government than under this Labour Government?

James Brokenshire: It is fairly typical of the right hon. Lady to come up with a point like that, when she well knows that there are plenty of savings to be made in the Home Office's budget—on ID cards and all sorts of other things, but not on front-line services. That, I think, is the key part of where we are today in ensuring that we deliver those front-line services for the benefit of our communities and secure the safety that they rightly deserve.
	It is interesting to hear the right hon. Lady coming at the issue in that way when her own Prime Minister has hardly shown leadership from the top. As Prime Minister, he has made only one significant speech on crime and antisocial behaviour. In that speech, given during the summer, he made the carefully considered suggestion that the law-abiding, rather than the law-breaking, should be accompanied to cash point machines by the police—a new twist on what Tony Blair had said previously. The Prime Minister also provided the remarkable insight that
	"we face new kinds of crime—especially knife crime"
	and
	"we face new causes of crime—including binge drinking, youth gangs and problem families".
	That poses the question of precisely where the Prime Minister has been for the last 12 years. At the Labour party conference, he claimed:
	"I can tell the British people that between now and Christmas, neighbourhood policing will focus in a more direct and intensive way on anti-social behaviour."
	A policy on antisocial behaviour, however, is not just for Christmas; it requires a sustained approach, looking at the long term and not just the short term.
	The costs of antisocial behaviour—both to society and to the Government as a whole—are significant. According to the National Audit Office, the cost to Government agencies of responding to reports of antisocial behaviour in England and Wales is approximately £3.4 billion a year. In 2008-09, 3.7 million incidents of antisocial behaviour—equivalent to more than 10,000 every day—were recorded by the police in England and Wales. On average, as the Minister said, even according to the Government's figures, 17 per cent. of the population perceive high levels of antisocial behaviour in their area, with the young and the less well-off being disproportionately affected.

Siobhain McDonagh: I may be mistaken, but is not the hon. Gentleman the same MP with whom I discussed antisocial behaviour orders and the whole attitude to antisocial behaviour in an interview on radio 4? In that, he appeared to mock the Government's attempts to deal with what he said was a particularly difficult issue, so has he been converted to the cause of dealing with antisocial behaviour and, if so, when did that happen?

James Brokenshire: Antisocial behaviour orders can be effective. We need to subject them to analysis, and to bear in mind the complete lack of focus on them that the Government have displayed. The National Audit Office was very clear about that. If the right hon. Lady will allow me, I shall develop my argument a little further and explain how antisocial behaviour orders may not have lived up to her own expectations, and may not be as effective as they could and should be.
	Let me return to the human impact of antisocial behaviour which matters so much—the vandalism and graffiti that make neighbourhoods threatening and unsafe, the abuse and intimidation that put people in daily fear in their communities, and the noise and other acts of selfishness that can even prevent a home from being a place of refuge. The tragic case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her daughter Francesca, could not provide a more distressing and dark parable to illustrate what it all means.
	What was worrying in that case was the fact that Fiona Pilkington's concerns were not responded to. Leicestershire police suggested that low-level disorder was not the responsibility of the police, but that of the council. They were fundamentally wrong. Issues of antisocial behaviour, criminal damage and threatening or abusive behaviour are absolutely a police responsibility. Those are precisely the matters that community policing should be confronting and helping to address, and it is deeply disturbing that responsibility for public protection—providing community safety—could be construed in any other way.

Madeleine Moon: I suggest that the Police Federation meets my community safety partnership in Bridgend, which is so proactive and so keen to ensure that it develops partnerships and alternative approaches that the incidence of antisocial behaviour in our area is declining. Where there is success, we should focus on replicating it elsewhere.

James Brokenshire: I am sure that, if the Police Federation follows our proceedings, its members will note what the hon. Lady has said. There is a case for sharing and applying good practice more effectively than is being done at present, and I shall say more about that later. However—this also relates to the hon. Lady's point—I think that we should consider what we mean by antisocial behaviour, as opposed to criminal behaviour, and whether describing behaviour in that way potentially plays down its significance. The term suggests that such activity is selfish and inappropriate, and that it is not the sort of conduct of which society approves, but it also blurs the line between what might be characterised as an annoyance and serious, sustained criminality. The Government's chosen definition of antisocial behaviour brings together a disparate group of seven strands of activity, which leads the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies to suggest that
	"it is hardly surprising that anti-social behaviour means whatever the government says it means. This has undoubtedly given ministers enormous scope to target whatever problem they consider to be of interest at any given point in time. Whether such a subjective and amorphous category provides the basis for robust, informed and evidence-based policy is a very different question."
	Against this backdrop, serious abusive, threatening and violent activity could be construed as simply antisocial—as something that might have to be put up with and as someone else's problem. It is more than antisocial, however. It is utterly unacceptable; it is criminal and it should be dealt with accordingly.

James Brokenshire: Causation is a pertinent issue, and also a very complex one. A whole range of interventions and support is needed to deal with these situations. There is, however, clearly a need for early action to be taken because, as the National Audit Office report and various other studies demonstrate, such situations can quickly escalate into becoming cases that involve much more serious offending. Addressing situations early is therefore likely to be much more effective than trying to deal with them later when the activity or behaviour has become more engrained.
	This comes down in part to effective policing. The police cannot do their job when the Home Office is always breathing down their neck, controlling their actions from the centre. The police spend more time form-filling than feeling collars out on the streets. Just 14 per cent. of all police officers' time is spent on patrol, while 22 per cent. is spent on paperwork. Although the Government have sought to change their command and control structure somewhat, it is interesting to note that the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, Peter Fahy, highlighted the following:
	"There is every indication that the centre is struggling to overcome its addiction to central control through statistical approaches and one-off initiatives."
	It is strange that the current approach is to pilot greater police discretion in four areas of the country. We want discretion for officers to be a norm, not simply a pilot.

James Brokenshire: The interesting question here is what exactly the Minister means by that, because if we think about targets, inspection and the policing pledge, we realise that there is a whole range of issues on which the police are measured under what is a specific target-driven approach. Therefore, it is still interesting that— [Interruption.] The Minister claims from a sedentary position that there is only a limited range of targets, yet it is clear from the quote I have given that the police themselves think that the Government's command and control driven target approach is still very evident. The police still strongly feel that.

James Brokenshire: That is interesting, because the hon. Lady suggests that the power should come from the people—that it should come from the ground up, rather than from the top down. Therefore, she is making a case against her other point about the need to direct from the centre.
	There is a need to create greater discretion across policing as quickly as possible, and our approach is based on two clear and simple principles: scrapping needless paperwork by giving more discretion to the police, and giving officers the power to innovate and stay on the beat. We do not need a whole host of targets, reviews, reports, key performance indicators, investigations and toolkits to meet the simple goal of reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. We need officers to be on the streets, not behind their desks. That is why we would cut the targets, the bureaucracy and the central control to allow police officers to get on with the job. That is also why we would abolish statutory charging for all summary offences and some offences triable "either way", as we want to cut the pre-charge police paperwork that currently has to be given to the Crown Prosecution Service and wish to help restore morale among custody sergeants.

James Brokenshire: We have made a very clear commitment to keeping officers on the streets. Our approach is that we must ensure that front-line policing is supported because the public want to know that they have police officers there—there to protect and support them and to deal with the issues that matter to communities. That is why we are proposing these practical measures to address that by getting officers back on to the streets and ensuring that police officers have more time to deal with the problems that communities are concerned about. That is also why we would simplify processes, such as recording stops and searches by radioing in the basic details rather than filling out a form at the scene and another form back at the station, and why we would trial specially designed mobile custody suites—or mobile urban jails—to enable officers to process offenders on site without having to go back to the station.
	Instead of improving and promoting good practice, inspection has become a stifling burden almost with a life of its own, with different agencies, different requirements, and different, and potentially conflicting, outcomes measured—and there is more and more to inspect on.

James Brokenshire: I have been generous in giving way, so I will move on if I may, as I would like to return to my point on inspection.
	We now have the policing pledge. On the face of it, its purpose is to set and raise standards, but it will be inspected on. Therefore, we will have a further range of inspection of performance against the police pledge. It was introduced as a message to the public, not as another set of metrics by which to judge performance. If we keep on inspecting and inspecting, we will lose more and more police from the streets and spend more and more time on people in offices.
	In addition, there are the tools and sanctions available to those in authority to deal with unacceptable behaviour. The Government have emphasised one particular order above all others: the ASBO. In the "Respect action plan", Tony Blair claimed that the ASBO
	"is now a household expression—synonymous with tackling anti-social behaviour."
	As with so many other statements of the former Prime Minister, if only it were true.
	It was claimed that these orders would help to prevent problems in neighbourhoods, but if prevention was the intention, the breach rate of the orders would not be as high as it is. In some parts of the country, more ASBOs are being breached than are being issued. In Humberside, Northumbria, Surrey, Gwent and Leicestershire, breaches of the orders outstrip the number of new ASBOs being issued. As Chief Superintendent Neil Wain notes in his insightful analysis, "The ASBO: wrong turning, dead end":
	"As a serving police officer I had considerable use of ASBOs and what struck me was not only did they get breached on a regular basis, they did not appear to be controlling the behaviour of those subject to them."
	The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies notes that the Government's flagship ASBO policy
	"faced huge implementation problems at the start and is looking increasingly discredited as a mainstream response."
	It is interesting to note those comments, because clearly the policy was not necessarily thought through. The Youth Justice Board's report on ASBOs indicated that many young people still do not have a clear understanding of the details of their orders; it was found to be not uncommon for them to "flout openly" the prohibitions that placed the greatest restrictions on their lifestyle. Most young people did not regard custody for breach as a real threat or deterrent.
	For a while, it seemed that the Government had fallen out of love with the ASBO, with Ministers keener to talk about broader antisocial behaviour "interventions" than ASBOs. The Children's Secretary even went as far as to claim:
	"It's a failure every time a young person gets an ASBO".
	ASBOs are now back on the agenda—reheated, repackaged and re-spun—with the Prime Minister's latest contribution to YouTube calling for greater publicity for ASBOs, despite the fears of perhaps making them a badge of honour, and with the Home Secretary putting renewed emphasis on the orders with the creation of drinking banning orders or so-called "booze ASBOs", even though a year ago I was told in a written answer that the Home Office was questioning whether the orders were needed at all.
	As they have done this afternoon in the Minister's contribution, the Government have sought to pray in aid the National Audit Office in support of their approach. Yet, the NAO found that the most effective intervention to prevent further incidents of antisocial behaviour among young people was not an ASBO but a simple warning letter. Rather than support the Government's claims of effectiveness for ASBOs and other antisocial behaviour interventions, the National Audit Office observed that it was not possible to draw any conclusions as to whether other forms of intervention, or no intervention at all, would have achieved the same, or a better, outcome—the NAO and the Government just did not know.
	The Government's approach has betrayed a complete lack of proper analytical assessment of the various measures that they have introduced. That point was made by the Public Accounts Committee, which noted:
	"Comparable local areas use different approaches to dealing with anti-social behaviour and there has been no comparative evaluation of the success of these approaches. Nor has there been a comprehensive evaluation of the use and success of the different measures and powers, making it difficult for the Home Office, the Respect Task Force and those dealing with anti-social behaviour to assess what works best."
	Despite the NAO specifically calling on the Home Office to evaluate formally the success of different interventions and the impact of combining enforcement interventions with support services to advise antisocial behaviour co-ordinators better at a local level, nothing has been published to date; the Home Office took the recommendation so seriously that it has only recently commissioned an independent evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of antisocial behaviour interventions, and it is expected to report next spring—that is more than three years after the NAO first highlighted the need for such an assessment.

Hazel Blears: For the sake of my clarity and, more importantly, for the information of the public, will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House, here and now, whether or not his party supports antisocial behaviour orders?

James Brokenshire: As I have already said to the right hon. Lady, we support the use of ASBOs in a targeted way. The information that I have just provided simply sets out that their application and the approach has not been properly considered. That point is made not by me, but by the NAO. It is, thus, strange that the Government have been dragging their feet on providing the qualitative analysis required to ensure that practitioners and communities are properly addressing antisocial behaviour in the most effective way, which is the point that the NAO was making.

Caroline Flint: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will move on, because I have been generous in giving way to lots of people.
	We would give police officers the discretion to deal quickly and effectively with young troublemakers who commit antisocial behaviour before they go on to commit more serious offences. We believe that there is a need for a quicker, less bureaucratic and more effective mechanism for addressing delinquent and unacceptable behaviour in order to help to prevent young troublemakers from going on to commit more serious offences. That is why we have proposed the introduction of the grounding order, which would enable the police to apply to a magistrate for an order against a persistent troublemaker, confining them to their homes for up to a month, except during school hours. If an individual were to break that curfew order, they should expect to find themselves arrested.
	Let us consider public action to address unacceptable behaviour. According to Louise Casey, 75 per cent. of the public say that they are prepared to take an active role in helping to tackle crime. However, just four out of 10 people say that they would intervene to challenge antisocial behaviour, which is less than in any comparable European country—six out of 10 in Germany would step in. One of the barriers that exists is the feeling that if someone gets involved—if they challenge unacceptable behaviour and, for example, seek to enforce their ability to conduct a citizen's arrest—they might be the one on the receiving end and, rather than being supported by the police and the prosecutors, they might be the one ending up with the criminal record. Louise Casey's report states:
	"There was a strong view from members of the public during the review that they would no longer intervene if they saw a crime taking place, for fear that they would either be attacked by the perpetrators or be arrested themselves by the police."

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proposal of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to introduce grounding orders, but he did not mention the other proposals made at the same time, which included those to confiscate mobile phones. Has his party dropped those proposals?

Graham Allen: I know that, beneath the party political banter, the hon. Gentleman thinks deeply about some of these issues. I want to take him back to his point about assessment and the evidence base. I hope that he will underline the fact that any future Government, of any political party, should always look at the evidence and the assessment, so that we get the right set of policies. Does he agree that massive savings would result if we were to spend a small sum helping young people—infants and children—grow up to be capable citizens, rather than spending billions and billions of pounds on court costs, drug rehab, tackling drink abuse and so on? Will he examine such an approach? It could do great things for his already flowering career, because he would be able to save billions of pounds at a time when we are looking to repay some of the debt that is accumulating.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to have an extensive look at the way in which many teachers think about looking after children? I was rather surprise to find that at the three party conferences, one teachers' union had a large headline over their stand that read, "Putting teachers first". Is it not important for our teaching unions to think again about putting children first?

David Taylor: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is being uncharacteristically unfair to the teaching profession. That was not the inference to be drawn—I am not a teacher—from the headline that he quoted. The teachers were seeking greater influence in the way in which educational policies are developed and extended. They were not suggesting that they were somehow at the top of the pecking order and that children, parents and the rest were beneath them. It is very unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to describe that stand in such a fashion.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman has made the point about housing in his own way. Clearly, when we consider housing and the resettlement of offenders when they leave prison or drug rehabilitation, we need to ensure that there is adequate housing that enables people to come back into a community. It is essential to have a housing mix as part of that.
	We also need to deal with drugs. We would introduce an abstinence-based drug rehabilitation order to break the cycle of addiction and offending, re-focus the approach to treatment on rehabilitation and recovery rather than simple maintenance and management, and emphasise prevention in drugs education rather than simple harm reduction and acceptance. We would also introduce a national citizens service programme for all 16-year-olds who want a place, providing a six-week programme to strengthen the skills, confidence and outlook of young people as they approach adulthood.
	Then there is the framework for delivering sustained change on crime and unacceptable behaviour. Local authorities should be re-focused on crime prevention and early intervention, providing services to prevent crime from happening rather than attempting to reduce it once it has. Many local authorities are doing innovative positive work in their communities to combat antisocial behaviour, but, as we have heard, too many crime and disorder partnerships are police-led rather than council-driven. Rather than having even more micro-management, there should be clearer ways to identify and share good practice—practice that is scalable and transferable—and the Audit Commission has an important role to play in collating and communicating that information.
	Rather than trying to fulfil some of the roles of local authorities as well, the police should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best—deterrence, detection and enforcement. There should be clearer responsibilities, clearer ownership of problems and clearer accountability. We need to address the perverse incentives that are hard-wired into the system and seem to encourage the approach whereby drug-treatment strategies are largely focused on substituting a prescription for a drug habit, often ending with illicit drugs, methadone and other prescribed drugs being taken at the same time, and whereby it is seemingly more cost-effective for local authorities to let troubled teenagers go to young offender institutions than to deal with the factors behind their behaviour. That is simply absurd.
	It is time for a new approach based on the recognition that only with the Government and individuals, and the social institutions that exist between the two, sharing responsibility can we make substantial and sustained differences in changing behaviour; that families and communities are more effective at instilling a culture of respect and responsibility than laws, rules or regulations; and that, ultimately, societal change is required to promote safer and more cohesive communities. This is too serious an issue to be allowed to drift or for people to coast on. If the Government are unable to meet that challenge and to demonstrate their commitment to a sustained approach that is needed to deal with the problems in our communities, we are ready, willing and waiting to meet that challenge.

Hazel Blears: I am pleased to make a contribution in what is an important debate, as evidenced by the number of hon. Members in the House on an occasion when a vote is not likely. That indicates interest from all parties in what are very significant and serious issues for our communities.
	I am particularly pleased to contribute because I represent Salford—one of the most deprived communities in the country, although the area has been transformed in recent years—and I want to commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for the energy, enthusiasm, tenacity and determination that he has shown not just in tonight's debate, but in his personal commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour, because he and I appreciate that the poorest people in the poorest communities often suffer disproportionately from antisocial behaviour. For many years, that fact went unacknowledged and unchallenged, and there was a failure on the part of all parties in local and national Government to recognise that those people who very often did not have a voice, power or influence in our society were subject to some pretty horrific actions in their communities. That was certainly the case in Salford 15 or years ago. In the past few years things have changed, but there is still a great deal more work to do.
	Nationally, the figures for antisocial behaviour have reduced from 21 per cent. of the population feeling that antisocial behaviour is a big problem to 17 per cent. In my community, the figure is still just over 30 per cent., so this is a very big and important issue for our communities. I am sad that some of the comments so far—I hope that other contributions will strike a balance—seems to have drifted into the analysis that the issue is about either enforcement or support. The purpose of every policy undertaken by the Labour Government for the past decade or so is to ensure that a twin-track approach is adopted.
	Of course there must be enforcement. The communities that face a range of problems need respite, support and the backing of the police, local councils and public agencies. Underneath that, there must be the polices mentioned on many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen): early intervention, support and prevention. Those things are not mutually exclusive, and if we characterise the debate by simply saying that all the regulations and orders— whether ASBOs, ASBOs on conviction, parenting orders or parenting contracts—do not matter and that we need to shift our investment to early intervention and prevention, we will be doing a disservice to some of the people still in poor communities who experience antisocial behaviour every day and, in many cases, are still under attack. I am happy to say that those families are perhaps fewer in number than some years ago and that there has been a great deal of success in tackling antisocial behaviour, but the problems are still there.

David Taylor: Of course my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are social and economic reasons why such neglect should not be allowed to continue. Does she agree that the alienation, despair and neglect sometimes felt in those poorer communities has made them more susceptible to the political activities of extremist parties and that tackling that would be a beneficial side effect of an increased focus on poorer communities?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, again, one that I hope will be shared right across the House. When people feel disaffected and excluded from opportunities that other people take for granted—whether in education and housing or, indeed, in their safety and security—there is ripe and fertile territory for the poisonous and divisive messages of extremists. We must do everything that we can, whatever shade of politics we adopt, to ensure that those people have the same rights, ambitions and opportunities as those that people in more affluent communities very often have access to.
	I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that there are two sides to policy on antisocial behaviour: enforcement and support. I should like to commend my own local authority—particularly its leader, Councillor John Merry, and the deputy leader, Councillor David Lancaster, who takes the lead on these issues—for doing what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) was saying does not happen. Our city council—a good Labour council—takes the lead and drives on a range of issues. We have been a pilot area for every initiative that anyone would care to name. Our council is absolutely committed, and our police service takes extremely good action. I spoke to my chief superintendent, Kevin Mulligan, this morning, and he said, "Hazel, there's a lot of debate about antisocial behaviour orders. People have been cooling on them in recent times. I'll tell you this: I'm not one of them. I'm a chief superintendent, and I want the whole range of tools at my disposal—ASBOs, parenting orders, contracts and dispersal orders." He is a hands-on cop, and he is determined that he will protect the people of Salford.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a small child who develops social and emotional capabilities will be a better student, will listen and learn, will have an aspiration to work and will, in turn and above all, become a good parent? We cannot start early enough in offering the support that she mentions to ensure that children grow up that way. Every public sector servant—whether her chief superintendent, her council leader, a teacher or a doctor—will give the same message: if we can get to those youngsters early, they will not become offenders or spend a lifetime on benefits. That is the core of early intervention philosophy, which, of course, must be balanced by dealing with those people who ultimately transgress. We must have more time to deal with those who transgress—

Hazel Blears: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about early intervention. I saw some research recently that analysed the reasons for antisocial behaviour and talked about children at the very early stages of their lives. It said that, many of those children, if they were not loved, had no idea about empathy and simply did not realise the effects of their behaviour on other people because they had not had a bonding experience with their parents at a young age. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to intervene early.

John Hemming: rose—

Hazel Blears: I will press on, because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
	I want to say a little about motorbikes and scrambler bikes. As a motorcyclist, I am obviously very keen to make sure that people use their motorbikes properly, but I am afraid that far too many people use them to cause an absolute nuisance to other people. I have been out and about in every part of Salford over the past few months. A few weeks ago in the Claremont and Duchy areas of my constituency, people told me that scrambler bikes, quad bikes and mini-motos were a menace to them and their communities. I am delighted to say that some 40 of those motorbikes were confiscated over the summer, and on Friday last week a public crushing ceremony was conducted in Buile Hill park.
	That is not complicated, it is not detailed policy administration, and it is not based on a huge amount of research, but I can tell the House that that kind of visible, simple, tangible action where something has been a nuisance, the police and the council have acted, and there has been a visible crushing of the bikes in the park has done more to raise public confidence in the community than many other things. I commend Chief Inspector Mark Kenny, who is responsible for our operations, for doing something that can be seen and is important to us.
	Far too many decent people in our communities have to put up with intimidation, harassment and unacceptable behaviour. I am sorry to say that there are people who do not give a damn about the effect of their behaviour on others. That is why it is important that the police use the whole range of tools available.
	I asked Mark Kenny on Friday, "Do you need any more legislation, Mark, in order to tackle these issues?" He said, "No, I don't, Hazel. We've now got a whole range of tools at our disposal. I don't have to turn up at an incident and say there's nothing I can do. There's always something I can do." As a police officer, he also wanted the freedom to be out there on the streets, showing that he was on the side of decent people.
	There will be a range of operations this week. It was Hallowe'en on Saturday, and it is bonfire night on Thursday. These occasions ought to be the opportunity for families to have fun and to go out to enjoy themselves, but all too often many communities live in dread of such events. Many, many families have suffered incidents such as having eggs thrown at their windows, or being terrorised with fireworks. Again, I am delighted that this week in Salford we have Operation Treacle—not quite operation treacle toffee—and Operation Staysafe, which are major operations being undertaken by not just by the police but the local council, the youth service and trading standards—a range of public agencies determined to keep people safe over the next few weeks.
	This week a roadshow is going to 10 areas of our city, asking local people, "What more do you want us to do to tackle antisocial behaviour in your neighbourhood?" Agencies are not simply saying what they are going to do, but are asking people, "What are your priorities? How can you help to drive our agenda?" I want to see more of that. The hon. Member for Hornchurch spoke about active citizens. If we give active citizens the right to set the priorities for the police and for their councils, they will be far more likely to join us and to stand shoulder to shoulder with us because they have been able to influence that agenda.

Graham Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. She is very generous, and I will not interrupt her again. Does she agree that one of the most important developments over the past 10 years has been the development of uniformed services other than the police—for example, police community support officers, community protection officers and wardens—who are a uniform on the street at different levels who people can interact with and trust? That has been extremely important. Does she hope, as I do, that Governments in the future will ensure that all these levels of security on the streets continue?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that in 85 per cent. of cases, the behaviour changed sufficiently that those families were no longer facing the threat of eviction for antisocial behaviour because they were no longer a nuisance to their neighbours. Many of them may not have become the neighbours from heaven, but they certainly stopped being the neighbours from hell. It was therefore tremendously successful in 85 per cent. of cases.
	The Salford project, which is run by Action for Children, was one of the early pioneers. We have going for three or four years. It is coping with up to 60 families, and I hope that with the Prime Minister's announcement of the expansion of the projects, we could double that number to just over 100 families. Then we would start to reach those people who are not yet in crisis, but for whom we have identified a range of ways they need to be helped.
	The family intervention projects in Salford have been a tremendous success. A lady told me this morning about a mum who had a serious alcohol problem, was facing domestic violence, was causing noise and criminal damage, was facing the prospect of eviction, and whose children were out of school. Within 18 months—these things do not happen quickly—that mum has reduced her alcohol consumption, she is on the user group for the project, she is interviewing staff, her children are back in school, and there has not been a report of antisocial behaviour for the past five months. That is real evidence of the success of this way of working.
	The family intervention projects illustrate a whole new way of working that could be really useful for our public services generally. It is about integrated working by a range of agencies, and about saving money and using it more effectively. Most of those families cost about £250,000 a year, having had a multiplicity of public sector interventions that did not change their behaviour. We have probably saved about £200,000 per family, because we have brought together services, given the families a key worker, given the key worker sufficient influence to change the way the way those services work and changed behaviour. If that is not smarter working, I really do not know what is. In the years to come, money will be tight whichever Government have to make the decisions. Therefore, by learning the lessons of the family intervention projects, we can use our money more wisely in the long term, and that will be hugely important.
	Other aspects of the antisocial behaviour agenda have made us think differently. The co-location of services, for example, has brought together police and probation officers and debt and drug counsellors, and Salford was the second pilot area for the community justice approach, which was trialled in Liverpool. We have trained every one of our magistrates in restorative justice and antisocial behaviour, and ensured that we use our housing powers to the utmost in order to make that difference.
	We have found housing injunctions to be incredibly important. We have issued 100, and, when they have been breached, we have been prepared to go to court for committal to prison. There have been four prison sentences and five suspended sentences; again, we have shown that we mean business. If someone has a housing injunction, their behaviour needs to change: if they behave well, of course they will be left to live in their home and carry on in their community; but if they breach the injunction, consequences will follow, and that is very important, indeed. At Salix Homes, we have a very driven Better Neighbourhoods officer, Sue Sutton, who has just re-written all our tenancy conditions to place a heavier emphasis on tenant responsibility. She is absolutely determined to ensure that that happens.
	We need integrated services, with councils, the police and a range of agencies working together, but we also need the determination to protect the decent people in our communities. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism that much good work has been done, and I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement on breaches of ASBOs, publicising ASBOs and giving more support to victims. However, I still believe that there is a great deal more to be done if we are to protect the most vulnerable people in our poorest communities.
	That agenda has driven me ever since I entered Parliament, because I live in my community and know the problems that people face daily. I see them for myself, and I see many people who are harassed and intimidated through no fault of their own. It is the personal responsibility of every Member, including me, to speak up for those people who do not have a voice, and to exercise power for those people who are powerless. I therefore ask Members from all parts of the House to support the use of enforcement powers where necessary. Of course we should practise early intervention and try to prevent problems from happening in the first place, but for goodness' sake let us not shy away from the fact that we have a responsibility to protect people and ensure that they can lead their lives in peace and go about their business without the fear of harassment and intimidation. Such behaviour still occurs all too often, but it occurs less often, and for that I am grateful.
	I believe that our Labour Government are on the side of the people in our communities, and long may they remain so. I also welcome the conversion of Members from other parties, although I have yet to hear from the Liberal Democrats—it will be very interesting to find out whether they have changed their minds on antisocial behaviour. I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has to say about the national picture, but I know that locally, in Salford and in many other places throughout the country, Liberal Democrat councillors have consistently opposed the use of dispersal orders and antisocial behaviour orders. Their record locally is very poor, indeed.
	This Labour Government, however, will continue to be on the side of the people who need our protection. I am absolutely delighted about that, and long may it be the case.

Christopher Huhne: I was about to compliment the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears)—before she finished with that outrageous slur on my party—on a thoughtful and interesting speech. I very much agree with her central thrust, which, as I understand it, is that we need to deal with the problem by using a set of agencies across the Government and locally. I recently visited the Liverpool community justice experiment and was very impressed by it. I know that there has been a similar effort in Salford, too, but it depresses me that the Ministry of Justice has decided not to roll out the scheme, because it seems that there has not been a holistic appreciation of the cost savings to other Departments. The MOJ has looked at the costs that its own budget would incur, but it has not taken into account the savings elsewhere. Our inability to join up government in a way that makes the most effective contribution is an enormous problem.
	I welcome the debate, which is a valuable opportunity to discuss a serious issue, and I shall discuss two main aspects. First, I shall consider the scale of the problem and outline why the measures being used to tackle it are not working; and, secondly, I shall outline my party's position on antisocial behaviour and make it clear how we believe that it can be effectively challenged by considering the evidence of those policies that work and those that do not.
	Antisocial behaviour is one of the greatest challenges that our society faces, and I agree with the right hon. Lady not least on her point that it affects those who are most vulnerable in our society—not just young people, as many people think, but those living in low-income and deprived areas. In 2008-09, the police recorded more than 3.5 million incidents of antisocial behaviour—more than 10,000 a day; and, the Home Office estimates that responding to antisocial behaviour costs the taxpayer £3.4 billion a year. Some 17 per cent. of the population believe that there is a high level of antisocial behaviour. That is an improvement on previous recorded findings, but the figure is still far too high, particularly in low-income areas, where it rises to 32 per cent. when people in so-called "hard-pressed" areas are asked. They are typical of the area that the right hon. Lady represents.
	However, knee-jerk and punitive measures that are applied indiscriminately and in isolation do not work well. The most infamous of those is, of course, the antisocial behaviour order, and such orders are now routinely breached, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) said. Almost 15,000 ASBOs were issued between 2000 and the end of 2007, according to the latest available figures, and more than half of all ASBOs were breached. Among children, the breach rate was 64 per cent., and, of the near-15,000 ASBOs issued in England and Wales, 40 per cent. were given to children.
	Penalty notices for disorder are scarcely better. Almost half those issued in 2007 were not even paid. As a result, almost 1,000 children were sent to prison for breaching an ASBO between 2000 and 2006. That represents 42 per cent. of all children who breached an ASBO in the period. By the end of 2007, more than 1,000 children had received a custodial sentence for breaching their ASBO. Half those sentences were for periods of more than five months, yet we know that there is no evidence that custodial sentences act as a deterrent to such offending. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The figures for 2007 show that 75 per cent. of 10 to 17-year-olds reoffended within one year of being released from custody, and the reoffending rate for a young man serving his first custodial sentence is 92 per cent. The result is that we have criminalised a generation of young people—particularly young men, and particularly those from ethnic minorities. That has become a matter of concern, even to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

George Howarth: rose—

George Howarth: The evidence that the hon. Gentleman offers is debatable. Would he not accept that while a young person is in prison—and the offences for which they are imprisoned are usually serious—they will not, at least, be available to reoffend in the communities from which they come?

Christopher Huhne: I am astonished, because I was recently at a youth offending institution in west London where a large number of the children were on remand—admittedly for serious issues, in many cases, but not for any offence.
	I have cited the Government figures on reoffending rates. Some 73 per cent. of antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by males, and almost half were under 18 years of age. The Youth Justice Board found that 22 per cent. of young people given ASBOs are black or Asian—two and a half times the proportion of people from ethnic minorities in the population as a whole.

Christopher Huhne: I recommend that the hon. Lady does what I have done myself in such circumstances: try, as the local MP, to get together a case conference involving the agencies and knock heads together. That actually works. If we have to wait until the police are at the point of issuing an ASBO, the people who have been suffering from the antisocial behaviour will have been doing so for far too long. Later, I want to develop some of the ways in which one can try to be a bit more effective earlier on.
	Research carried out by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children suggests that 35 per cent. of all ASBOs issued to people under 17 were to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or a learning difficulty. Nearly a third of all people say that teenagers hanging around on the streets are a big problem and, as we know, antisocial behaviour is predominantly perpetrated by children. Yet rather than giving young people a real and attractive alternative, we too readily give them an ASBO.
	ASBOs are extremely punitive—sometimes, frankly, to the point of being ridiculous. Take 13-year-old Zach Tutin, who was served an order banning him from using the word "grass" anywhere in England and Wales for six years. Meanwhile, 17-year-old Luke Davies was forbidden from using the front door of his home until he reached the age of 21. It seems to me that such sanctions can never change a young person's behaviour for the better, never make them accept responsibility for their actions and never engage them with the victims of their behaviour.
	The current approach has not been working well, yet as usual the Government have flip-flopped on what to do about it. When the 2006 ASBO figures were released in 2008, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), then Home Secretary, asserted what we Liberal Democrats had argued for some time: that alternative methods of early intervention are far more effective than ASBOs. However, in July 2009, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the new Home Secretary, announced measures to revive the use of ASBOs, admitting to Government complacency on the issue. What approach do the Government believe in? Are they merely chasing after tabloid headlines or looking at the evidence of what actually works?
	Despite some of the remarks from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), I am afraid that the Conservatives are offering only more of the same. They have criticised the Government for headline-grabbing gimmicks, but, frankly, their ideas are no different from the current solutions. They have suggested confiscating the mobile phones or iPods of young people who behave antisocially. The hon. Gentleman suggested that young people could be grounded out of school hours for up to a month.
	Such schemes are slow to implement, and continue to criminalise children, rather than diverting them away from antisocial behaviour at an early stage. What really work are community-based punishments and solutions. The Liberal Democrat council in Islington pioneered the use of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are more rehabilitative for the offender and more beneficial to society. A National Audit Office study has shown that they were highly effective in combating antisocial behaviour precisely because they get buy-in from the people involved. Some 65 per cent. of the people stopped behaving antisocially after one intervention, 86 per cent. after two interventions and 93 per cent. after three interventions.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need for support from the family. One of the issues with ASBOs has been the lack of application of support orders to ensure that they are backed up. If that is the hon. Gentleman's point, I entirely agree with him.
	The same National Audit Office study found that on average acceptable behaviour contracts cost £230 and were 65 per cent. effective. That compares with ASBOs, which cost a frankly staggering £3,100 yet were only 45 per cent. effective.

Christopher Huhne: I just gave the actual breach rates for acceptable behaviour contracts, and they are on the record. I pointed out that breach rates go down substantially at the second intervention and that at the third intervention, there is 93 per cent. effectiveness. That was in the NAO study. Sadly, no solution operates as a magic wand; I am not saying that. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Hornchurch seems to believe that a magic wand can be waved. Does he think that any particular measure can solve the problem on its own? Acceptable behaviour contracts are certainly more effective than ASBOs. However, contrary to the myths peddled by some Labour Members, we Liberal Democrats have never been against antisocial behaviour orders; we have always said, however, that they need to be seen—

Siobhain McDonagh: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I agree with my hon. Friend, fundamentally so on his initial point that if we are to have such law it must be properly enforced. The real problem with ASBOs is that the Government's periodic attempts to use them have not been matched by the necessary back-up. If they were used as a last resort at the end of a whole series of measures that were able to bring gradual pressure to bear, we would be providing a much better back-up for ASBOs and there would be fewer breaches. In reality, in some areas where they have been overused they have unfortunately become a figure of fun because they have not been properly applied.
	Research by the Audit Commission has found that a young person in the criminal justice system costs the taxpayer more than £200,000 by the age of 16, whereas one given support to stay out of the criminal justice system costs less than £50,000. Those costs, together with the evidence on the effectiveness of community measures and community sentences, should be enough to tell the Government that a resurgence in the use of ASBOs cannot and should not be the way forward. Yes, they are a last resort, but they should not be something that we reach for as a panacea. Acceptable behaviour contracts are drawn up in consultation with the offender and so provide a greater chance for young people to voice their concerns and agree on what is acceptable. Those young people are far more likely to comply with a contract because they are more engaged in the process, which imposes positive rather than negative conditions on them. Liberal Democrats would expand the use of acceptable behaviour contracts, integrating them with alcohol and drug treatment where necessary.
	However, community measures and community sentences alone are not enough. A study by the Prison Reform Trust published in October 2009 found that the reoffending rate for young people involved in restorative justice schemes was 38 per cent., compared with 52 per cent. for community sentences alone and 71 per cent. for custodial sentences. By confronting the offender with their victim, restorative justice highlights the consequences of the crime or the behaviour, and the emotional engagement can lead to genuinely heartfelt changes in behaviour. We have seen that in the interesting recent report on the use of restorative justice in Northern Ireland. We would engage a wide range of public services—councils, the police, schools and care homes—in restorative justice schemes and ensure that restorative justice panels were set up to co-ordinate the process.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who is no longer in her place, stressed the importance of prevention and mentioned her recent experience with her local street pastor scheme. I, too, have had experience of two street pastor schemes in my constituency—in Fair Oak and in Eastleigh itself—and I can testify to the positive effects. In the case of the Eastleigh scheme, it is too early to tell, but in Fair Oak there was a clear fall in antisocial behaviour in the years following the scheme's implementation. Street pastors' engagement with young people has been effective and commendable.
	Above all, young people need to have alternatives to antisocial behaviour. The old adage that the devil makes work for idle hands to do is true. We would create a youth volunteer force to make engagement with the community more attractive to young people. Activities could include the restoration of sports facilities or environmental projects, both of which could provide people with skills they can use again in future. The emphasis must be on encouraging positive behaviour rather than penalising negative behaviour. A 2009 report by the Audit Commission concluded that sport and other organised recreational activities run by local authorities can provide cost-effective solutions leading to reductions both in antisocial behaviour and in the use of the police.

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman is talking about being cost-effective. In Nottingham, for about £700,000 we were able to help more than 100 teenage mothers to get their children set on the right way with the right life skills and personal development, and the empathetic behaviour mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). That is about the same as the cost of three people going into a secure unit for a year at the age of 16, two of whom will, statistically, return to it later on. Will the hon. Gentleman commit his party, as I invited the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) to commit the Conservative party, to doing some serious analysis on cost-effectiveness and evidence-based projects so that such early intervention becomes the common reality?

Christopher Huhne: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman —he is absolutely correct. We need much more serious assessment of the costs and savings across Government agencies, particularly if any Government are going to persuade the hard-nosed men and women at the Treasury that it is something worth doing. If someone from a Department goes in to the Treasury saying, "I want to spend more on this", particularly given the likely fiscal environment in the next 10 years, they will need to have some pretty hard evidence that savings will be made elsewhere. As I said in response to the thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Salford, time and again we have seen a lack of joined-up government in the failure to assess, overall and holistically, the budget impacts of many measures. That is crucial if we are to make real progress.
	Individual programmes need to be combined with measures to allow local authorities to tackle unacceptable behaviour on the spot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) noted. A 2008 study found the first hard evidence, to my knowledge, that the mere presence of graffiti, broken windows or litter in an area more than doubled the likelihood of people littering and stealing there. The broken windows theory has been extremely controversial, but it is now getting enough support to suggest that it needs to command cross-party consensus. One solution, which the Liberal Democrats tried to introduce in the Policing and Crime Bill, would be to allow local authorities, as well as the police, to order people to clear up their own graffiti or littering. I will not go into that any further at this point.
	I am surprised that we have not heard more about the effects of alcohol, which fuels much of the antisocial behaviour in our town centres. Responsibility for the control of alcohol falls largely within the remit of other Departments, and not enough is being done. Under-age drinking is a huge problem. We know from a Home Office report that 40 per cent. of more than 2,600 licensed premises surveyed in 2007 failed to check for identification and happily sold alcohol to minors, yet very few licensees are being prosecuted for selling alcohol to under-age children, particularly in off-licences. The Government have created alcohol disorder zones, but, to date, not a single council has decided to use those powers. The Government need to focus on the basics, which includes conducting test sales to ensure that children are not being sold alcohol and prosecuting those who sell it to them. We need to work across government effectively, and the focus should not just be on policing and repressive measures but on early intervention and tackling alcohol misuse. The family intervention project is an interesting idea. We will see how effective it can be when the evidence comes in, but over time it looks promising.
	I do not for one minute want to suggest that ASBOs are inappropriate in all circumstances—that is certainly not so. They are a last resort that should be used sparingly, and when all other options have been exhausted, but they must be properly enforced. We need to re-engage with our young people and give them the opportunity to improve their behaviour, to take responsibility for their actions, and to have a productive future that is not blighted by a criminal record. Only when we do this will we be some way towards tackling the antisocial behaviour that we all want to combat.

Caroline Flint: The debate has indicated how complex dealing with antisocial behaviour is. One complexity that underpins it is that, unfortunately, there is not a blank sheet or the same starting point for all those involved in antisocial behaviour. We seem to agree about the need for early intervention, and I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that everything he suggests we should be doing, we are doing very well. However, some people in our community—adults and young people—have been involved in antisocial behaviour for some time and sucked in the energy of many different agencies and services, and in those cases firmer action needs to take place.

John Hemming: rose—

Caroline Flint: I shall make a little progress, if I may, because I am in the first paragraph of my speech.
	It would be fair to say that in most of the Don Valley communities that I represent, antisocial behaviour is still one of the biggest concerns that my constituents raise with me. We have heard again this afternoon about its impact on our poorer communities, but it crosses communities and it is not only adults and young people from poorer backgrounds who cause problems. I spent some time with safer neighbourhood teams in my constituency this summer and was told by police officers, as I was by those in other parts of the country when I was a Home Office Minister, that one thing that they find galling is parents turning up to a local park and unloading their kids from their 4x4s with alcohol to amuse themselves for the evening. That is not acceptable, and the need for parental responsibility applies to all parents, no matter what their level of income.
	In Don Valley and Doncaster, I have seen some real progress compared with 10 or 11 years ago, when it seemed that the criminal justice system did not really care about or understand the impact of antisocial behaviour. Some 13, 15 or 20 years ago, the police were short-staffed and ran from crisis to crisis. If a neighbourhood had a community police officer, that officer was pretty much on their own. In the police service, that sort of policing was not seen as valuable to future career prospects. Now we have seen some positive changes.
	At that time, antisocial behaviour went largely unrecognised and the police often did not have the time to come out and deal with complaints about youth nuisance, harassment or intimidation. Even when members of the public reported incidents of antisocial behaviour, the reports were not collected and often went into a black hole. The police would then say, "Well, nobody's complaining to us", and the community would say, "We are complaining, but nobody is gathering the intelligence and using it effectively."
	That failure to address antisocial behaviour undermined public confidence in local police, but it was also a failure of Governments past. It was a failure of leadership, resources and the will to address the underlying causes of such behaviour. It became clear, particularly to Labour Members, that we needed to respect the families who faced harassment and intimidation outside their front door day in, day out. We needed to take on a criminal justice system that did not understand and was not really interested. Tackling antisocial behaviour is an example of a public policy originally advocated not by the professionals but from the grass roots in our communities, and supported by elected representatives who were determined to get action. The Labour Government got it and sought to improve the situation.
	New resources have been provided to rebuild communities such as mine, coal mining communities savaged by the loss of traditional employment, and a focus on education standards has meant that we have gone from only 34 per cent. of young people getting five GCSEs at A to C in 1998 to 71 per cent. in 2009. There have been extra community funding, home security initiatives and youth funding. There are more police officers—13,500 more nationally—and new police community support officers to supplement their work, which has been central to turning the antisocial behaviour problem around.
	I am pleased to say that across South Yorkshire, like many parts of the country, we now have dedicated safer neighbourhood teams, with police officers, PCSOs and community wardens working with other agencies and accountable to the neighbourhoods that they cover. We have identified the power gaps and bureaucracy that got in the way of action, and we are putting the situation right.
	There is always room for improvement, and policies and practices are always worth reflecting on and changing if necessary. There is no doubt that the Government have got a lot right in tackling crime, but there is more to do. We are the only Government to have reversed the rising trend of crime not for one year but year on year for more than a decade. Crime is now a third lower, and in Doncaster it has fallen by 10 per cent. in each of the past two years.

Caroline Flint: We are all doing something right, then, and well done to all those countries too.
	New powers have been important, and we have spent considerable time talking about ASBOs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any power that is provided should be used in the best way possible, but it is interesting that he talks about using antisocial behaviour powers as a last resort. That approach is too constricting, because people involved in such activity are often extreme in their behaviour and wilfully disregard what is acceptable in communities. That is one reason why using such powers only as a last resort results in breaches—by then, the problem and the individual concerned have got out of control.
	There are other orders available, such as youth referral orders for young first-time offenders, which build into the system restorative justice, reparation and apology to victims. In my experience, those who try to act big when served with an ASBO end up behind bars. If that is a badge of honour, it is one that is welcomed in most communities. In Doncaster, the council's legal services staff have pursued 55 ASBOs since 2003. Four have been extended and a further 16 are currently being progressed. I am grateful to them for the support that they give our safer neighbourhood policing teams.
	A number of the new powers have been vital in giving those on the ground the tools they need to restore public confidence. The confiscation of alcohol in the street, the power to close crack houses, the breaking up of gangs in designated areas and the power to escort young children home after 9 pm have all proved popular and, if properly targeted, are highly effective. I spent some time with safer neighbourhood teams in my area this summer, and I was pleased to see that when we came across young people with alcohol, even when the one holding it was over 18 and could provide proof, the alcohol was confiscated younger people were present. That power is important, effective and quick.
	However, I say to Ministers that in the past couple of years I have been a little worried about the moving of responsibility for antisocial behaviour from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. In August 2008, an interview in the  New Statesman with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families was prefaced with the comment:
	"The so-called Respect agenda has been quietly shelved and the obsession with Asbo rhetoric curbed."
	In my view, that policy shift was misguided and wrong. Moving the respect unit and responsibility for youth crime and antisocial behaviour to the DCSF did not make any sense. Tackling those problems should be firmly the responsibility of the Home Office, whether it involves young people or not. The respect unit should have stayed with the Home Office, and I am glad that it has now been put firmly back where it belongs.
	For a period, searches for information about antisocial behaviour on the DCSF website produced pages of press releases about the children's plan and playgrounds. I do not think that anyone in the Commons would vote against more youth facilities or playgrounds, but we do not stop intimidation or harassment just by providing swings.
	Labour is the political party that most people identify with to tackle antisocial behaviour, but we are in danger of losing ground. Thankfully, that does not reflect the good work that was happening on the ground in Doncaster and elsewhere. To that end, the current Home Secretary has my full support in turning things around, because rhetoric matters. It does not matter as much as what is happening, but it sets the tone, which is important when the public are listening.
	We should never be complacent about antisocial behaviour. It is a contributory factor to neighbourhood decline; it makes people feel powerless and makes them stay indoors more; it makes parents more worried about their children playing out; and, let us not forget, the largest group of victims of antisocial behaviour is children and young people. Often, they cannot go to the youth club because there is a gang outside intimidating them, they cannot use the playgrounds because glass has been scattered across it, and they cannot enjoy the services that are in the community because they are preyed upon by young people and sometimes adults. Antisocial behaviour makes people fear their own neighbourhoods at certain times of day and night. It is absolutely corrosive and eats away at the quality of life.
	The problem of antisocial behaviour is local. It may happen in a particular gathering place, an off-licence, or a couple of streets, or it may be to do with a particular family. Each problem requires a local solution, but to make such solutions effective, we have needed better teamwork between councils and police, new powers to deal with the problems, and particularly local policing and community liaison.
	As I said, I spent three shifts on duty with the safer neighbourhood policing teams that operate in my constituency, and I am very grateful to Sergeant Richard Vernon and his Doncaster West team; Sergeant Russell Higham and his Doncaster South team; and Sergeant Richard Barnes's team, whom I accompanied in the Hatfield and Dunscroft parts of Doncaster East. They would not let me get away without mentioning them. It was good to see how they were making a difference. They worked very closely with the council's neighbourhood wardens, and PCSOs make a valuable contribution to those teams. One told me that they extend an open invitation to Richard Littlejohn, who described PCSOs as "plastic policemen", to visit Doncaster to see the important contribution that they make.
	PCSOs respond to community feedback to shape their operations, use local intelligence from the public and others to task their operations, whether that is to do with roads where traffic speed is excessive, an off-licence where young people gather or a church yard drinking spot. They organise night-time operations to tackle motorbike nuisance and burglaries, visit victims of crime and are involved in drugs raids.
	What lessons did I learn from that experience? First, on parenting orders, we need to hold parents to account. When Doncaster truanting cases are taken to court, it is standard practice to request a parenting order, but when children and young people are involved in antisocial behaviour, that does not happen. I think that that is wrong and I am campaigning locally to ensure that the loophole is closed. That is certainly one of the clear comments that were made by the three safer neighbourhood policing teams that I was able to work alongside this summer.
	Secondly, on communication, as a local MP, I know how much is being done to tackle antisocial behaviour and of the success stories that arise from it, and the police and others hold regular meetings—monthly, I believe—to listen and provide information. They are getting better at communicating success through community newsletters, websites and the local media, but many residents are still not aware, and tend to believe only the negative stories in our national media, which rarely cover the positive action and change on the ground.
	Delivering immediate, cheap but topical information to the most affected households about what is being done could give an enormous boost to residents' sense of well-being and should be encouraged. Likewise, MPs have a key role in providing information on constituents' concerns and communicating to them the powers that exist. I did a survey of constituents, and it became clear that although they knew about safer neighbourhood teams, they did not know how to contact them. I was able to feed that into the process and help to put it right.
	Thirdly, justice is important to the public's sense of safety and fairness. For a number of criminal offences, the public would support non-custodial sentences if they had faith in such an alternative. For too long, the professionals have argued against visible community sentencing. Sometimes, professionals, Ministers and Opposition Members have been squeamish about the idea of an offender wearing a bright jacket when undertaking activities in the community where they have committed crimes. Thankfully, that has changed, but I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need go further and apply the same conditions to under-17s, who need to be seen to be facing the consequences of their behaviour. Too often, they are taken off to do worthwhile activities, remote from the community they have harmed.
	I recognise the need for a variety of actions to move a young person away from a life of crime, and to show them that there is understanding of how they became what they are, and support for them to take control and turn their lives around. However, that should not be at the expense of facing up to the consequences of their actions and the debt they owe to the community.
	Fourthly, the Home Office is undertaking a pilot whereby communities can bid for the return of the proceeds of crime. I think that that is very worth while. I am very proud that I was the Minister who took the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 through Parliament. Crime should not pay. However, I would like my hon. Friend to look at the possibility of further decentralisation, so that the assets of crime that are collected can be used more locally and so that there is a greater opportunity for direct involvement in decisions on how that money should be spent.
	In my final comments, I shall focus on the horrendous and brutal attack on two children in my constituency earlier this year. The attack in Edlington was all the more shocking because it was undertaken by two boys aged 10 and 11. The attack was exceptional in its severity, for Edlington or anywhere else, and the malicious injury of children by other children is always shocking. Given that the two attackers were under the supervision of Doncaster children's services, it is no surprise that an inquiry is under way.
	A lot has been written about Edlington, much of it unfair to the former pit village. Photos used in one newspaper showed a street with derelict houses that was demolished years ago—a new health centre stands there today. The village has gone through tough times, not least in the years following the closure of the mine in the mid-'80s, but that is not the Edlington of today: crime has fallen steadily; there are fewer offences and victims; there is better local policing and good community organisation; and there are improving schools. It is not perfect by any stretch, but it is far from broken.
	I am sure mistakes will come to light during the inquiry. The people in the services are human and make mistakes, and we always say, "Never again." When children die or are terribly injured, there is quite rightly a huge amount of publicity and debate, but what we do not talk about enough are the children who survive early childhood but who are so damaged that their futures are bleak, and who could become a danger to themselves and to others. Those wider issues need to be addressed alongside the question of why the victims in Edlington could not have been better protected.
	Sadly, some families are badly dysfunctional. No parent is perfect, but some are hopeless and cruel. When parents are heavy drug users and live in an atmosphere of selfishness fuelled by addiction, how can a child be fed, cared for or emotionally supported? I have met many young adults who are caught up in crime who have drug or alcohol problems or sometimes both. Their life stories often involve a lot of intervention from social services and others, and large amounts of time spent in foster care or residential homes.
	We have heard how the Government are supporting earlier intervention on our most challenging families, which I support, but I believe, as does Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo's, that in some cases, children should be removed sooner rather than later. For a number of reasons, over several decades, keeping children with their families appears to have assumed priority status.
	Coram, a charity devoted to the welfare of children, partners prospective adoptive parents with children under two whose future is being decided by the courts. If the birth family can demonstrate to the courts, often after drug treatment and support, that they can meet the child's needs, the baby can return to their care. If not, the carers can proceed to formal adoption. All the adults take the risks and, above all else, the child's needs are paramount.
	The great advantage of that process for the children is that it will speed up planning for their lives without having to suffer moves of placement and delay. Coram is holding a conference today to promote that adoption model, which they call concurrent planning. Only four local authorities have worked with the organisation, and most are sticking to the old methods.
	I realise that that matter would most appropriately be dealt with by Ministers in the DCSF, but I am trying to address how we can save some of those children from becoming the problems that they may become in their later lives, as we have seen in our communities. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister takes my points on board and that the Children's Secretary will seriously look at that model and assist a wider debate on its use.

David Tredinnick: I do not believe for a second that we would be discussing antisocial behaviour orders today in Government time had it not been for the tragic deaths in my constituency in 2007 of Fiona Pilkington and Francecca Hardwick, and the subsequent coroner's report, which came out in October. The two tragically died in a fire in a car, and the coroner returned verdicts of suicide and unlawful killing. That case has forced the whole antisocial behaviour issue up the agenda, which is why we are discussing it today.
	The small community of Barwell has been distressed by these events, as has the larger community of my constituency. Indeed, it has shocked the nation, and we have had the arc lights of the national media focused on Barwell. On behalf of the community that I have represented for more than 20 years, I make the point that Barwell is a good community. It has a great carnival in the summer. The people are hard-working, they work together and they like each other. The problem is a tiny number of people. As other hon. Members have said, it is a tiny number who cause the problems, and they have to be the focus. Whatever measures we take, we have to focus on the ends of the normal distribution—those few people who cause all the problems.
	I attended the memorial service for Fiona and Frankie on Tuesday last week in Barwell at Newlands primary school, organised by the Reverend Andrew Murphy and all the churches in Barwell and Earl Shilton, the next-door village. It was a very moving ceremony conducted with great dignity. Fiona's mother was there, as was Francecca's brother. The community—a good, solid Leicestershire community—came together. So to those who have rubbished Barwell and its people, I say stop. It is a problem caused by a tiny number, and it is being worked on.
	The coroner criticised the three main agencies—the police, Hinckley and Bosworth borough council and, to a lesser extent, Leicestershire county council. Given the statement earlier about the firing of the drugs tsar, how can the crime tsar, Louise Casey, have survived, when she has criticised the Government so vociferously. She has said:
	"We have let people down".
	She was critical of the division of responsibility for antisocial behaviour between the Home Office and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, a point touched on by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). How can the Government be so hypocritical and fire the drugs tsar, but let the crime tsar survive? I can give way to the Minister if he wants to intervene. No; he is firmly welded to the Bench.
	How did we reach a situation in which, allegedly, antisocial behaviour is not really part of police activity? One officer made a remark to that effect that was broadcast nationally. I see the Minister shaking his head, and I agree with him. If we look back over the history of policing, there were periods when different demands were made of the police, and different direction was given from the top. In the 1960s, Roy Jenkins, the Labour Home Secretary, introduced—reasonably enough—what was called pandarisation, with the use of little Morris Minors to make the police mobile. It was a good idea at the time to achieve more effective policing, but it failed because it broke the link between the police and the policed. Eventually the policy was reversed. Recently, we have had reactive policing. That partly dates back to 9/11 and the whole terrorist issue. Organised crime has also demanded police resources, and a few years ago we had an unduly large proportion of murders in Leicester.
	The solution to the problem lies in the origin of British policing, as devised by Sir Robert Peel and the Metropolitan Police Act 1829. The Act required that able men be appointed and sworn in as police officers of the metropolis principally for "preserving the Peace." That was their first duty, although they were also tasked with
	"preventing Robberies and other Felonies and apprehending Offenders against the Peace."
	Those are all important, but it is preserving the peace that is the first duty of the British police officer. Sir Richard Mayne, the first commissioner, described the preservation of public tranquillity as the first priority. We have lost that aim.
	We have reached a point at which it is easier for police forces to pursue the other objectives, and we have not had enough emphasis on the simple requirements of keeping neighbourhoods safe. The awful case in my constituency has brought that to the fore, and we are now looking for ways to improve the situation. I suggest to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Opposition spokesman that we must focus on peace in the community. That is what people want above anything else.
	Hinckley and Bosworth borough council was also criticised, but in some ways it has been ahead of the game. The last Conservative administration in 2006 introduced the weekly information-sharing meetings, which were where all the agencies got together to discuss what to do. Subsequently we have had neighbourhood action teams, and a range of interventions and remedies. There have been special measures taken in Barwell—a community house was introduced there in July. However, in 2007 and beyond, there was clearly a breakdown in communication between the agencies. In defence of the town I represent, it would be wrong to say that no one was concerned and that no action was taken.
	The right hon. Members for Salford (Hazel Blears) and for Don Valley made robust speeches, saying that tough action has to be taken. Councils have to take tough action. Indeed, some law enforcement—in terms of maintaining the peace—has shifted from being a police duty to a council duty. The councils are obliged to apply these remedies, but that is not the core discipline of council officers. The councils are getting these instructions, but taking such action is complicated. Councils have to be very robust and have a policy that makes it clear that if orders are broken, there will be consequences. The matter will be taken to court, and it is no good saying nothing will happen. We have had problems in the past with Traveller communities, when difficult law and order issues arose—

David Tredinnick: I agree with the right hon. Lady, but I chose council tenants, because councils often have control over vast swathes of housing. An important sanction is for council tenants, and housing tenants if applicable, not to be told that they will be moved to a nicer borough—that is, shifted to somewhere better. Rather, they have to understand that if they do not follow the requirements of the new measures that have been introduced, they will go to worse housing. Councils must be robust about that, so that the move will be difficult for those concerned.
	Leicestershire constabulary has introduced an extensive training programme for the police. The Minister would do well to encourage councils to ensure that they train their staff too. Indeed, I was interested to hear his ministerial colleague saying earlier that he would issue instructions to councils about how they should handle antisocial behaviour. However, the lack of co-ordination on that has been a terrible gap—indeed, a glaring hole—in the Government's policy.
	I will say a word about that in a moment, but first I want the Minister to take on board the need to train staff. There must be adequate training to safeguard children and adults alike. Why do I say that? Let us look at the number of agencies and sub-agencies that we are dealing with. We have the safeguarding adults board, the weekly information-sharing service, which I have described, the crime and disorder reduction partnership, community safety programme boards, adult social care departments, adult social services, children and young people's services—the list is endless. How do we co-ordinate all those groups? I was speaking to a senior colleague on the council in Hinckley who said, "Well, Fiona slipped through the net." We have to ensure that the mesh in the net is thicker and that less gets through. We have to consider all those issues.
	I have mentioned the police and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, but I must now mention Leicestershire county council, which was not criticised to the same degree. However, it has a youth offending service, a youth service, which is represented on the police-led multi-agency joint action groups, and a family intervention project, as described by the right hon. Member for Salford. The county council has other projects that have helped, such as its support for the work of the multi-agency Barwell recovery strategy, which is led by the borough council. Those projects, along with the youth impact team initiatives and the safeguarding adults boards, are all helping.
	Let me return to the police for a bit. Leicestershire constabulary took quite a beating in the inquiry, but the police have also taken positive initiatives, raising the profile of the safeguarding adults programme. The police have also introduced the JACQUAL—joint action for quality of life—team and the police and council antisocial behaviour teams, so they have not been dilatory in acting after the problem.
	However, the police have suffered a major handicap, namely the 101 telephone system, which is the non-emergency system that the Government trialled in Leicestershire and that was found to be extremely successful. The police picked up a lot more information, because a lot more people were prepared to ring them on that simple, three-digit telephone number. However, I cannot imagine why the system has been dropped, with all the technology that we now have, which, relatively speaking, is becoming cheaper. Given the success of the project, the Minister should look again at the resources for it.
	The police in Leicestershire have introduced two other measures that are well worth mentioning. The first is a system whereby they know exactly where every car on the beat is. The second is a laptop system that makes available a massive amount of information at any one time.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who is not in her place now, talked about street pastors, which is an interesting development. The scheme is a Church-backed project to put people in the community on the streets at no cost—they are volunteers—to help individuals. I shall be finishing on this theme, but when the Churches are united or there are individuals who want to help, we have to embrace them. We cannot ignore them. They are volunteers, so they are cheap—there are no bills to pay. We need to put our arms around them and say, "Yes please, we need your help in our communities." That is important.
	The other issue—perhaps I should say, "The next related issue," because, unusually, I have a little time this evening, although I assure colleagues that I will not speak for too long, because that is not necessary—is political control and direction. I served in the Army years ago, and it used to be said that men are only as good as their officers. However, with councils the opposite is the case. The officers are only as good as the men and women elected as councillors who control them—or should control them, because far too often officers are given their head.
	We have very good officers in the county, and I have a lot of respect for Hinckley and Bosworth borough council officers, but boy, do I wish that there were sometimes better political direction, because officers should not have to deal with the allocation of housing, Travellers' sites or resources on their own. That is what politicians are for—we are there to oversee those people. That is the relationship.

David Tredinnick: I am glad that I have the support of the right hon. Ladies. We have to look at the issue, so perhaps the Minister should offer some guidance.
	I said that the tragic case in my constituency had attracted a lot of attention. Indeed, some contributions were made at the party conferences, but to call someone a "victims champion", as Labour did at its conference, is a bit tacky. I mean, how can Sara Payne be the champion of all the people who have problems? That was not a very good use of language. However, I think—perhaps predictably—that some important proposals were made at the Conservative conference. They included introducing a range of instant punishments, such as grounding orders, which may need to be developed, and cleaning up local parks, which is eminently sensible, as well as dealing with mountains of bureaucracy and trying to give more power to the police to take action.

David Tredinnick: I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Lady has said. However, what we really need, whichever Government are in power, is to find a system whereby the police do not waste their time, which means that when they apply their time, it is effective and has an outcome. We do not want endless visits by the police that achieve nothing. I say to those on both Front Benches that we need to focus on the quality of police time and on how police time is used. We now have support officers, and we can make things much more effective.
	The police's task has been made much more difficult by some of the Government's measures. One measure, which the Prime Minister himself has criticised, is 24-hour drinking. I was in conversation last night with Byron Rhodes, the chairman of Leicestershire police authority. We talked for about an hour, and he said, "Look, two o'clock is surely enough, isn't it? You should see the amount of police resources it takes to deal with nightclubs after that." Does it make sense for clubs to close at six o'clock in the early hours of the morning? Are we really a nation that needs to drink through the night? I do not think that we are, and I think that we have proved that these changes do not work. We are not a continental nation—we do not naturally sit there with a sausage and a lager at six o'clock in the morning.  [ Interruption. ] I was thinking of my time in Germany, but I had better move on fast, because I am getting into a lot of trouble. We should revisit the alcohol laws. The licensing laws were brought in during the first world war, because munitions workers were getting so drunk. That was happening in one city north of the border in particular—I will not defame it this evening—so the licensing laws were brought in for a purpose. We really need to revisit the issue.
	Another problem, which has been addressed on many occasions in the House, is cheap alcohol and how it is purveyed. If it is a loss leader in supermarkets, it will contribute to the problems.
	The crime problem has been exacerbated by the downward pressure on, and the destruction of, the traditional British pub. The number of pubs going out of business is tragic. I could mention the Dog and Duck in my constituency—it is happening all the time. People used to go to these places for community. If people sit at home drinking lager behind laptops, we will have criminals—we will have people who cannot form relationships and who do not have friends. We should protect the pubs.
	A related issue is the removal of dartboards from pubs. I will not use the G-word—gentrified—but there is definitely an attempt to push places upmarket, and that means taking out the dartboards. A survey has been done on this. The removal of dartboards is a great tragedy, because darts is a national sport. I have played it, although I do not play it very much and do not pretend to be a great darts player, but I do not like to think of pubs losing their dartboards. In Leicestershire, we have skittles. We have a lot of skittles alleys—they are great fun, and a lot of pubs still have them. How about the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and who might be in power in a few months, doing a bit to support pubs that keep traditional games? Why can we not offer some incentives? It would not necessarily be very expensive. Do we really want empty, gloomy pubs that close down? I do not think so.
	Of course, the smoking ban has not helped. I voted against it and I am really pleased that I did, because the more that I look at it, the more I think that it was a great mistake not to gradually phase it in— [ Interruption. ] I am not going to hold the right hon. Members for Salford and for Don Valley on this one, although I have held them for most of the debate, which is unusual. However, it was a mistake to put everybody outside. And what about the environmental issues? Someone tell me the cost of these massive gas cookers outside—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will now relate some of the remarks that he is making—perhaps as he did at the commencement —to antisocial behaviour.

David Tredinnick: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will relate my remarks to antisocial behaviour. We really ought to revisit the way in which we have blocked a large number of people who still smoke out of the places where they used to have their social life. That is a great pity.
	 I have talked about police priorities, and I have quoted Robert Peel and Richard Mayne—I have gone right back to the basics. The problem in Barwell was that the officers, in this case under the direction of their senior officers, were not applying themselves as a priority to keeping the peace. I think that things have now changed dramatically, and the police focus on Barwell has been formidable—I suppose that one would expect that reaction. The police have done good work, and I will refer in a moment to something else that will be happening as of Friday.
	First, however, I want to turn to policies on elected police chiefs and other elected officials. I spent some time in New York, and I attended a well-known university researching policing and public order in a multiracial Britain. I looked at Scarman, policing in the '80s and the riots in Brixton and Bristol. I have some sympathy with the idea of elected police chiefs, because I think that that political direction is important. However, if we do go down that route, there are real dangers that the police will be pulled in certain directions by particular groups. Given the current problems with terrorism and the other national issues that the police are obliged to deal with, there would have to be safeguards.
	The Conservative policy of having elected police officials may be a good one. The problem is that people—

David Tredinnick: Madam Deputy Speaker, the answer is that we will have less antisocial behaviour if we have a police force that is more sensitively directed. I am suggesting to the House that it is not enough to have elected police authorities, even though they have been reformed and now have a different composition. There is a strong case for having some—not a lot, but some—elected police representatives in communities.
	I have one last point to make on the political issue. I notified the borough council— [ Interruption. ] I ask the House to bear with me for just a minute longer. I notified my borough and county councils, the police and the police authority that I was going to make this speech. I said that there was a fair chance that I would be called because of the problems that we had had. The focus of the problem locally has been what is being done in Barwell. I am sure that this is a happy coincidence, but I received an e-mail before the debate saying that four youths linked to antisocial behaviour in the Barwell area had been charged with offences and will appear before the Hinkley courts next month. As I have said, I am sure that it is a happy coincidence that that arrived before this debate, but it might not be. It might have arrived because I, as the Member of Parliament for the constituency, notified the agencies involved that I was going to make my speech. That is a good example of political accountability, with elected representatives in this honourable House saying what they feel, and action being taken on the ground.
	A lot of politics can be summed up in simple words, and one of the great phrases of this autumn was uttered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think that it represents what the country wants, so parties on both sides of the House should take note. My right hon. Friend said at the Conservative party conference:
	"We've got to stop treating adults like children and children like adults".
	I gave a great sigh and thought, "Thank you. That's what people really want to hear." The nation is fed up with being told that the kids are giving us the runaround and adults cannot take any action. That has had a really serious impact on our policing. Traditionally, everyone in this country was a policeman. We always have been—it is part of our culture. One has only to read in "Oliver Twist" about Bill Sikes's dog running off to the east end and being pursued by everyone in a hue and cry—one does not have to watch the westerns to see the posses going out. The fact is that everyone was always part of the police, and we need to get back to that so that we can support the police. We do not want to hear the police tell us, "We'll nick you if you touch that person." Why would they do that? Because they have poor direction. There is not enough political input at the top telling them, "Don't say that. It's stupid." The police cannot enforce all the laws anyway. There is a duty on all of us to keep the peace.
	The other issue that I want to raise before I sit down— [ Interruption. ] It is unusual to have a bit of time in the House.

Siobhain McDonagh: I hope that the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) will pass on my condolences—and, I am sure, those of everyone in the House—for what happened to Fiona Pilkington. I can assure him that that case has given me some sleepless nights as I worry whether I have taken into account everything that my constituents have told me at my weekly advice surgeries. Whatever the headlines might be, and whatever opprobrium might be considered to attach to MPs at large because of the problems with our expenses, many people come to see us to express their serious concerns and private anxieties. Sadly, we are often the people who take up the cases of those who are the most voiceless, and of those who are ignored by the authorities. Because of the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am conscious of the need to do so even more.
	For everyone in the House, this is the epitome of the bottom-up debate. It is because our constituents were concerned about antisocial behaviour that we have any antisocial behaviour legislation at all. Ten years ago, it was Back-Bench MPs of all parties in this House who, understanding their constituents' concerns about this issue, forced legislation through and demanded action in the face of hostility and jeering in the national media and in much of the political establishment. Antisocial behaviour was not a fashionable subject at the time, and it was only because of the interaction between constituency MPs and their constituents that we understood that it was a priority for them. As a result of our constituents' anxieties, police safer neighbourhood teams have been introduced, along with a whole range of new powers for councils, housing associations, the police and other public bodies.
	This has to be a source of continuous revolution, however, if we are to tackle the problem. That is why I would like to concentrate on some of the areas in which we fail. We do not fail in all areas, but we need constantly to get better. We need to understand when we are resting on our laurels or failing to take the direct action that we need. It is a matter of concern to me that we are all developing an antisocial behaviour industry—a bureaucracy that sometimes blocks progress in favour of its own cosy meetings and cosy time scales. Too often, formal processes do not lead to satisfactory outcomes, and more flexible, direct, informal and decisive action would be quicker, cheaper and better.

Siobhain McDonagh: That could be one of the means by which we could do that, but no structure will necessarily give us the entire answer. In our communities, the elected representatives—the MPs, the councillors, and those in regional government—need to be concerned with the day-to-day experience of our constituents, many of whom feel voiceless and powerless. People who know that the remedies for antisocial behaviour exist tell me that they are going to the services that should be providing respite but not getting the necessary action. The public respect our good intentions, and are pleased that the powers have been put in place, but, on occasion, they have found the industry better at delivering excuses than solutions.
	I checked my casework system today, and discovered that, in the past year, I have written 171 letters about antisocial behaviour. Like the hon. Member for Bosworth, in preparation for today's debate, I contacted my local police commissioner. I also contacted the chief executive of my local council and the chief executive of a major local housing association. I did this mainly because I felt that this could help to get some cases resolved, but I was surprised that all their responses were defensive. They blame other organisations, or loopholes in the law. They say that they could resolve the problems if only they had more money and power. Worst of all, they sometimes do not see the point in trying.
	One of the most revealing comments came from a group director of London and Quadrant Housing Trust, one of the largest housing associations in my area, and a brilliant organisation in many respects. He said:
	"Even if we do evict someone for antisocial behaviour, we'd only move the problem on elsewhere".
	First of all, it is not futile to take action against antisocial behaviour. Action against tenants who are causing a nuisance can make a difference. Secondly, why would a housing association not make its top priority the welfare of its law-abiding tenants who simply want to live in peace and quiet?
	The chief executive of Merton council was similarly revealing. I have written to him many times about antisocial behaviour. It is one of people's top concerns in my constituency, if not the top one. He passes every single case that I have personally written to him about to a more junior officer. He feels that I "misunderstand" his role. He says:
	"I contribute to the council's work on antisocial behaviour at a strategic level by jointly chairing the Safer Merton partnership and by ensuring the council has staff and a programme in place to provide a response to the issue."

Siobhain McDonagh: Absolutely. I hope to provide such an example later in my speech.
	The chief executive of Merton council went on to say:
	"I am clear I am acting appropriately and I consider the conclusion you have drawn is wrong and misunderstands my role."
	For me, however, it is important that he knows what his officers are doing. How does he know that his strategic decisions are being implemented on the ground? It seems to me that the word "strategic" is often the last bastion of those who do not want to roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty. After all, it was his authority that removed a dispersal order from Mitcham town centre earlier this year, despite protests from local residents. Everyone in Mitcham supported the dispersal zone. It did not make everything perfect, but it certainly helped. Yet, for Merton council and the police, the improvement in crime and antisocial behaviour meant that it was not needed any more.
	I did everything that I could as an MP; I do not think that I have ever felt so frustrated about one single issue. I went to see my local neighbourhood team, I went to the council, I went to see the inspector and I went to the area commander. Eventually, I wrote to the Metropolitan police's commander of territorial policing, Maxine de Brunner. I am delighted to be able to make this speech tonight, just to let hon. Members understand some of the content of her response. She told me that
	"concerns were raised by interest groups such as Liberty that even with the checks and balances contained in the legislation, the powers infringe human rights. Consequently...Merton have taken an evidence-based approach in considering whether a new zone should be granted, and from the evidence available at this time, it has been decided that a zone cannot be justified."
	I was under the misapprehension that we lived in a democracy—clearly not. Liberty is not what it says on the tin—at least, not for the Mitcham residents who wanted the liberty to walk through their town centre without being intimidated by groups of troublemakers and who wanted to be asked their opinion about this order. Later in the letter, Maxine de Brunner says:
	"Specifically in relation to the dispersal zone in Mitcham, the Figges Marsh ward panels did discuss the dispersal zone with the local police, as did the Glebe Court residents association, and the rationale for this decision was shared with residents."
	She does not say that the decision was unanimously opposed and that these groups did not accept that rationale because she knew that the most vulnerable people sometimes do not make the complaints that we hear from those with greater confidence and the courage to do so.
	Where was I to go from there? I persuaded more than 100 residents to give up a Saturday morning to meet the police and state the obvious; within a few weeks, the dispersal zone was back in place. However, the decision to remove it was symptomatic; it lacked common sense and local knowledge and it was more to with acting in the interests of a tiny minority of protest groups and going through bureaucratic hoops than acting according to the welfare of the people of Mitcham.
	I would like to mention a few more individual cases, because they highlight where we can improve what we are doing. Gilpin close is on a 1980s housing estate of about 200 properties, the majority are privately owned, with some operated by housing associations. The estate is in a cul-de-sac just off a main road. Nobody walks or drives through the estate other than the people who live there and their family and friends. It is often off our radar. This summer, a couple came to my advice surgery and they described how two or three neighbouring houses were terrorising the estate. Over the next few weeks, local councillors and I met more of their neighbours and heard more about abuse, threats of violence and doors being kicked in. One man who simply lived alone and went to work long hours every day had his windows kicked in three times in three successive weeks. People were followed and shouted at in their own homes and there was low-level drug taking and vandalism. One couple were actually assaulted. This had been going on for 18 months.
	Much of the trouble was caused by one particular family, including a nine-year-old boy. All the agencies had got together—the police, the safer neighbourhood team, the council, the housing association, the school and the child in need team—and they had all plodded on through the process. All the while, however, the people in Gilpin close had to live with it. They were prisoners in their own homes for months and months on end.
	The chief executive of Merton would not have lived like that; the commissioner of police would not have lived like that; the head of London and Quadrant housing trust would not have lived like that; I would not, and you would not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because, however, the antisocial behaviour industry we created did not stop the trouble in its tracks, the poor people of Gilpin close had to live like that or move out. In fact, some residents tell me they do not report antisocial behaviour because they are worried about becoming victims themselves by complaining or, worse still, because they fear they will not be able to use the ultimate sanction, which is to sell their home if they cannot resolve the problem.
	It is interesting to note that it is not just elderly or young people or middle-aged people who suffer from these problems—the people suffering from antisocial behaviour come from all ethnic backgrounds, all ages and all classes. One particular case provides a stunning example. An elderly lady of 89 came to me recently, together with a young Tamil couple with a baby. They live on the same ground floor of the same block and suffer from the same problem—a 19-year-old guy deciding that whatever time of the day or night he wishes to play football outside their door, he can do so. In spite of years of complaint and in spite of this amazing elderly lady being brave enough to complain—on one occasion this young man even kicked her stick away in the high street because of her complaints—this problem could not be solved. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I do not pretend to be the brightest person in the world, however what should be done seems obvious to me: a few pyrocanthas should be planted in the middle of the lawn so that this man cannot play football. He would then simply have to move less than 100 yards away to play football in the pitch next door to his block.
	Then there is the case of Mrs. A of Lilleshall road, who complained to me after her safer neighbourhood team told her that they could not do anything about the kids shouting, screaming and drinking from her street corner. Again, I sensed the whole industry crunching into gear and about to spend months consulting on what action would be most appropriate. Would it not be better to spend a fraction of the money that that would cost on landscaping the corner to make it a less attractive hangout?
	What about Mr. K of Malmesbury road, who came to me complaining about a nine-year-old throwing stones at his house late at night? The police said that they could not do anything because he was below the age of criminal responsibility—but he is nine years old and out late at night! He is surely not too old to be taken home and it is surely not too difficult for the police to have a tough word with his parents. The boy is not too young for a parenting order. The creation of safer neighbourhood teams is absolutely fantastic, but we have to be able to empower our police officers with doing the work of getting involved in antisocial behaviour and publicising what they do as much as doing it. Sometimes, not unreasonably, our police officers do not have those skills. For a long time I have thought that it would be a fantastic idea to use those people who we know are great marketers in our society to use some of their time to help the police in the work they do. That would be doing a great community service.
	Let me provide a particular example, which my sister told me about. My hon. Friends will know my sister well and are aware of what a tough character she is. She is not a woman to be crossed. When she was at our local shopping centre one weekday morning at 9.30, she stood on the corner and watched two PCSOs walk around the perimeter of the shopping centre—not talking to the mums with their kids in the buggies, not introducing themselves at all. When they had finished, my sister went up to them and said, "I am really sorry. I watched you do that. Don't you think it would be a good idea if you shook the hand of everybody you met, talked to them and gave them your card so that they would know how to contact you?" They looked completely bewildered at her question and just said, "Oh, people do not like to be bothered when they are shopping". We all know that that is nonsense; we all know that people are crying out for a return to the mythical Dixon of Dock Green—the police officer who knew every blade of grass on their watch. We know that those PCSOs, who were probably very good officers, need to be given the skills so that they know how to react and connect with people to build that relationship of trust.
	One thing I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to look at is the reintroduction of the old Respect taskforce. It used to be a real help, particularly as Members became increasingly frustrated that the council, police service and housing association were not dealing with issues of antisocial behaviour. It was possible to contact that taskforce and ask its members to come and talk to the services involved. These people were often experienced practitioners who could cut through the miasma of bureaucracy and come up with a solution. I would seriously like to ask the Minister to reintroduce this taskforce.

Humfrey Malins: I shall brief. Let me begin by declaring my usual interest as a practising lawyer and as one who sits part-time, traditionally, in a number of criminal jurisdictions.
	A week or two ago, in the middle of the afternoon, I was on a train 20 or so miles south of the centre of London. A group of about five young people got on. I think that there were two or three young girls of 13 or 14, and a couple of young boys of about the same age. They had been drinking. They sat almost next to me. Within seconds all their feet were on the seats, and within seconds the language was becoming fruitier and fruitier and less and less pleasant.
	I put up with that for a couple of stations, and then three points occurred to me. The first—given that the behaviour was pretty nasty—was that I was not sure where I could get hold of a guard. Secondly, I asked myself whether I should I intervene. I do not know whether my colleagues would have intervened, but I lost my nerve on the off chance that I would get thumped. Thirdly, I thought to myself "Wait a minute: what has gone wrong here? All we are talking about is the fact that someone, somewhere, has not taught these young people how to behave properly in public, and it is a real shame." I watched them get off the train a couple of stations later: a nice-looking, young bunch who might make quite a lot of life. But they had behaved so badly on the train, and I was not even sure that they had noticed what they were doing.
	We have heard a great deal about ASBOs tonight. We have heard a great deal about their effectiveness or otherwise in relation to antisocial behaviour. I remember when they were introduced. Indeed, I have had to administer a few myself. They have a place in life—the Minister said so, and I agree with him—but there are an awful lot of breaches. The overall figure is 50 per cent., and in the case of youngsters aged 10 to 17 it is nearly 65 per cent.
	Actually, I am not sure that I like the idea of a 10-year-old being subject to an ASBO. There must be other, better methods. Nevertheless, there are breaches. In 2005, 4,000 ASBOs were issued and 2,100 were breached. In 2006, 2,700 were issued and 1,800 were breached. Earlier, the Minister spoke of tougher action from the Government for those who breach ASBOs. He will know that already in the magistrates court breach of an ASBO carries a sentence of six months. He will also know that in the Crown court it carries a sentence of five years. Tremendous penalties are available to the courts, and I do not think that we need to toughen them up.
	We have also heard a great deal about new measures, but the question for me is not how we intervene in relation to antisocial behaviour, but when we intervene. In my view, the earlier we do so the better. For years in the House, I have heard about the introduction of new measures by successive Governments. I have heard about new policies, new orders from the courts, acceptable behaviour orders, parenting orders, referral orders, grounding orders, websites, helplines and night courts. The list of initiatives is endless. But does it get us anywhere? I do not think it does, and I think that most people out there in the community realise that that sort of top-down approach is not really effective.

Humfrey Malins: When they break down—the children or the orders? It is hard to say.
	Yes, I am a very junior member of the judiciary. I take that little slight on the chin. The trouble is, as far as I can see, that a great number of ASBOs are being breached. That suggests not only that they are not always effective, but that we are not intervening early enough with our children in the community.

Humfrey Malins: I will give way once more, but I promised that I would be brief—unlike others.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing that ASBOs are not effective because they are breached. Does he not accept that ASBOs are often applied to the most prolific offenders, and are therefore more likely to be breached in most circumstances? I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Patel on the Duchy estate that their bravery in standing up and giving evidence was not worthwhile. It has made a huge difference to that estate.

Humfrey Malins: I am afraid that that comment was not worthy of a former senior Minister; it is as simple as that. All I am saying is that ASBOs are not always effective. My main point is that our intervention should come at an earlier stage, when it comes to the children in our community.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is quite right. I was about to say that the myriad orders, agencies, new punishments and new sentences from the courts are no substitute for a good, loving home life with proper role models for young men in our communities and proper discipline in schools, so that people learn from a very early age how to behave properly. I think that the House should focus on that.
	Another issue that is very important to me is literacy. I have a great deal of anecdotal evidence from the courts where I sit. A huge percentage of the youngsters who appear before me—indeed, this is true of many aged between 18 and 25—have real literacy and numeracy problems. A typical example might be a young man, perhaps 20 by now, who comes from a very poor estate where there was no green grass and nowhere to play. He lived four floors up in a block of flats where the lift did not work. His mother was probably addicted to Prozac, and his father or stepfather was probably drunk and knocked him about. He went to school and did not make much of a fist of it. It was not long before he was beginning to get behind in his lessons, and then he began to truant. When he was truanting, he eventually got himself excluded form from school. He would go back occasionally, but then, because he was frustrated with life and could not read and write properly, his behaviour was becoming worse and worse. Finally, he was permanently excluded. Eighty-two per cent. of youngsters under 21 in our young offender institutions have been excluded from school at some stage, and approximately 50 per cent. have been permanently excluded from school. Many of them were excluded because they were disruptive. To a great extent, that disruptive behaviour comes from frustration at their lack of literacy and numeracy.
	So many youngsters are incarcerated on short sentences—which, by the way, I believe are a complete waste of time and money—in our young offender estate. The levels of literacy and numeracy in the young offender estate are very low indeed. However, in many of our young offender institutions the maximum amount of time spent on education and training is only four hours a week. What the devil is that worth to somebody who goes in there barely able to read or to write his own name? There is also two hours a week on team sport. Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to believe in the merits of team sport—of learning to take a knock and give a knock, and to behave properly.
	As often as not, those in our young offender institutions are locked up for 17 hours a day, and there is a total lack of emphasis on what is truly important: getting the boys—they are boys—to read, write and become better qualified for life outside. There is also a total lack of emphasis on resettlement. In the last few months of a sentence, we should be striving hard to ensure that every youngster coming out of a young offender institution has somewhere to go—a job to go to, a mentor, a bit of support outside—otherwise there is just a revolving door and they come back inside.
	The behaviour of a minority of young people is very bad—although most young people are brilliant. However, I firmly believe that we, as a Parliament, must not debate this issue every six months, trying to outbid ourselves with more and more different punishments, more and more different bodies and more and more different headlines, when in fact we know that the truth is that we must intervene with youngsters early, because if we do not, the rest of our talk is rubbish.

Nadine Dorries: It is about 8.30 pm and seven Members still wish to speak, so I shall keep my comments as brief as possible.
	I had wanted to talk about the importance of the role of the family. I have looked at the situation in some European countries where there is a stronger family ethos and where antisocial behaviour differs very much from ours both in type of antisocial behaviour and in the amount and frequency of it. That will have to wait for another day, however.
	Instead, I shall discuss a situation that arose in my constituency over the weekend. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) said she was out in her constituency on Friday night, observing how the street pastors operate. I was out in my constituency in the very early hours of Sunday morning, after having received a telephone call to let me know that 800 cars, each containing between two and five young people, had arrived between two villages. They proceeded to leave the cars, walk into the woods to a disused warehouse and have an illegal rave. We might ask, so they left their cars and went into the woods; where is the harm in that? Well, there are a number of ways in which that behaviour was antisocial, and there are a number of issues to do with how it was dealt with and how I would like it to be dealt with in future.
	First, the warehouse was unsafe; there was steep rock and it was surrounded by water. It is also no exaggeration to say that everybody in there was high on drugs. The organisers were making their money by selling the drugs, not by charging an entrance fee. The cars had been left all over the road, too, and the local people were kept awake from about 1 am, when the cars started to arrive; they screeched up and down between the two villages. There was also the noise from the sound system. Three thousand people descended on to this small rural area, and it was completely overwhelming.
	The debris caused were an antisocial feature, as was the fact that there were no toilets—people just went to the toilet where they could. My biggest concern, however, was the fact that there was no water supply and also that there were no medical facilities, no emergency services and no back-up. These kids had no water. I was there for seven hours, along with others. The kids were taking pills, inhaling from canisters and yet they had no water. They were not in a position to be in control of what happened to them or their own safety.
	Another big concern is the fact that these people came to our constituency in the first place. They did so because the place they came to was seen as an easy target. Two policewomen were sent at the height of this rave. I am not sure what they were sent to do; I imagine the phone call went to the emergency services and they came. They wandered into the middle of this illegal rave, but they should not have done so because their safety was compromised. We needed a strong response from the local police to protect the safety of these young people, getting them out of this area and this danger.
	What did the police do? When it became daylight these two policewomen, having been up, left their shift and two policemen came to take over—they were great people, but what could two of them do in the face of this? The police superintendent told us that they were going to send a helicopter up to assess the danger, despite the fact that we had been there for hours and had already been up there. They sent the helicopter up, although we had actually been told that the weather was too bad; we knew that it was raining, because we were soaked to the skin. Thank goodness it does not rain in Afghanistan, Iraq and such places, because I have no idea how helicopters are used there when it rains. The helicopter eventually went up when the rain stopped, and a couple of hours later the police did come out. The action chosen was to stand and to serve an order on the organisers—but there were no organisers as such.
	People slowly began to disperse peacefully. All credit to the kids, because they did, in their incapable state, try to clean up some of the mess as they left. People who should not have been driving were getting into cars. Drugs are as dangerous as alcohol when one is driving, and these people should not have been getting into their cars on leaving—this was 13 hours after they had arrived. If we had had an elected police commissioner who was accountable to the people of the two small towns where this rave took place, the police would have been more rapid in their response and more effective in how they dealt with the situation. As it was, this rave continued and people had their day disturbed, as their night had been. Can one can imagine this going on all through the night? I was there at 7 am and I got home at 2.30 pm —we were just in the position where we could leave around then. The mess on the roads and at the site was disgraceful.
	We have spoken about antisocial behaviour today, and people have cited their cases and what has happened to their constituencies. Antisocial behaviour can be anything from a child misbehaving, or somebody on the tube or train with their iPod on too loud so that it disturbs everybody else's peace and environment, to something like the 3,000 people who arrived in my constituency. At the bottom of all this is the authorities' ability to deal with antisocial behaviour as it arises. I know that a number of cases have been made for the myriad of agencies and tools that both the police and the authorities have to deal with antisocial behaviour, but the fact is that in many cases they do not deal with it. As I witnessed with my own eyes on Sunday, it is not a case of not wanting to deal with it; it is almost a case of there being too many instruments for the police to use. It is not as though any one event is dealt with by saying, "This is how we deal with this; this is the tool we use." There are so many tools that the police are confused as to what they use and when.
	We know that 15,000 antisocial behaviour orders have been served, that 50 per cent. of them are breached and that 65 per cent. of ASBOs given to young people are breached. That constitutes a fail; it means that ASBOs are not working. Rather than serving ASBOs on young people who behave in a way deemed to be antisocial, perhaps we should be reinforcing our police, so that they can act in a way that makes these young people think twice about what they are about to do before they commit any instance of antisocial behaviour; those 3,000 young people who wanted to arrive in my constituency for an illegal rave should have known that it was not worth their while, because the police would descend on them and move them on. It should not have been worth their while coming from Wisbech, Suffolk and all the other places that they told me they had arrived from, because the police should have had the powers and the ability to deal with the situation straight away and move them on. Apparently some police forces do take that approach, which is why the kids were in my constituency; they were there because the police forces in their area have a zero-tolerance attitude towards these raves.
	It has been very interesting to listen to some of the speeches made by Labour Members—in fact, it has been amazing, because this Government have been in power for 12 years, but some of the speeches have almost suggested that antisocial behaviour is a new phenomenon that has suddenly arisen. If we speak to anybody, anywhere and ask them what is of huge concern to them, the answer will be the rise in antisocial behaviour in all areas of life and in all places. Whether it is on the train or in schools, or whether it involves people descending on the streets in my constituency, antisocial behaviour is on the increase and it is getting worse.
	Whatever we are doing with the myriad tools and instruments that the police have, it is not working. As soon as the Government accept that, the better. As soon as they understand that the way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to give the police powers, to make them more accountable and to give them the ability to deal with such behaviour as and when it arises, the better it will be for all of us. One way of doing that and of ensuring that it happens is to consider having elected police commissioners.

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady is about to refer to the elected commissioners as part of the solution. Will she explain why so many senior police officers do not see it as part of the solution at all and are worried about a politicised police force?

Nadine Dorries: I am delighted—I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Who would want to vote for their job, which is incredibly safe, to become not so safe and more accountable to the people? Who would want that? It is probably self-explanatory why police chief constables do not want this to happen. We are not talking about elected chief constables—the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands me—but about elected police commissioners. They are not quite the same, but it does not make any difference: if someone were accountable for how the police respond to antisocial behaviour, I guess it would be dealt with much more effectively.
	I will sit down now because I know that lots of hon. Members want to speak, but I wanted to highlight the case in my constituency this weekend, how it disturbed the lives of many hundreds of people and how we need to reinforce our police forces so that they can instantly deal with such situations when they arise.

Alistair Burt: This has been an enlightening but also frustrating debate. We have heard many things that have frightened us on behalf of our constituents, but we are frustrated because we have been here before. It is not a subject on which there are easy answers or places where we have been successful. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made as eloquent a plea for a change of Government as I can remember hearing, if that is her experience in her constituency after 12 years of a Labour Government. The only phrase that she did not include was a plea at the end of, "Why, oh why can't someone do something about all this?"

Alistair Burt: In my understanding of government, the Home Secretary is a Labour Home Secretary, the democracy that the hon. Lady was asking about is run by a Labour Government, and if a council is not doing something there is a democratic way of dealing with it. She was complaining about Labour policies. Who created the structure that she was kicking up so much fuss about? It was a common theme among a number of colleagues who spoke, who talked about the endless meetings and liaison panels and the industry that has grown up. It is not one council's fault or one Government's fault. There has been a change of attitude over a long time but the truth is that after 12 years there is only one place where the buck stops, and that is with her colleagues.
	I shall do my best to be brief. I shall cover ground similar to that covered by others, but I want to outline the situation is in my constituency and say two or three things that highlight the concerns in North-East Bedfordshire, a largely rural area with frustrations and concerns related to antisocial behaviour.
	In Little Staughton—a small parish in the north of my constituency—people had a very bad summer. A series of outbreaks criminal behaviour, including damage to property, and abusive behaviour was finally traced to a young man and a few acolytes whom he led. The young man had problems, which is often the case with those involved in such activity and behaviour, but huge distress was caused to the local parish. However, its excellent parish council chairman, Tony Moss, is concerned about people's inability to be contacted by the police and about the criminal justice system's inability to inform them about what has happened as the result of their complaints and concerns. He said, "If you're not attached to the criminal justice system, you're not aware of what's going on." He is concerned that the police's hands are often tied in terms of informing people of the progress of a case and the individual concerned and what the sentence and compensation might be. In that case, the parish council believes that restorative justice would make a difference. It would like the young man and his friends to work in the village, so that people could talk to them about what has happened, so that they can understand the impact of what they have done and regain some self-esteem by doing something about it. The parish council's approach seems perfectly reasonable and something in which the criminal justice system should involve people.
	In an intervention I mentioned the concern felt by many people who look after organisations that the increasing bureaucracy and regulation relating to child safety are driving away those who want to take part and volunteer to help children and young people in my constituency. I was disappointed by the Minister's response. I hoped that he would be more positive about the concerns that have been raised about the Independent Safeguarding Authority and say that he takes them rather more seriously than the incumbent chief executive would appear to have done.
	There is a good article in  The Sunday Times this weekend by Jenni Russell, who describes how a small boy could not be picked up by someone who knew him, because he had not been authorised to pick up the child. The youth worker who stopped the child being taken home knew that the boy faced a mile-and-a-half journey on his own in the dark, in the rain. She could not take the boy home either, and he went home in the dark, in the rain on an unlit road. Jenni Russell says in her article about the way we now deal with such issues and the checks:
	"Everything about this approach to the question of how to make society safer is wrong. The problem isn't that most people are potential abusers of children or adults; it's that a tiny and determined minority are. Vetting millions of people is not only horribly intrusive; it's a waste of time. It will create a false sense of security. Even if all the rumours and accusations the ISA received were accurate, and even if it got a remarkable 99 per cent. of decisions right, that would still mean that hundreds of abusers would be cleared, and more than a hundred thousand innocent people would lose their jobs or their reputations by being ISA-barred."
	I had a message today from the twinning association in Sandy in my constituency. The mayor of Sandy, Geoff White, passed on to me a letter from the twinning association that says, "You'll no doubt have read in the newspapers during the last week that the independent safeguarding agency is now demanding that anyone who comes into touch with children that are not their own offspring will now need to have a CRB check. This includes those who are giving a lift to their own children's friends to football practice and other clubs etc. and it also seems designed to stop foreign exchange students or children on normal twinning trips from visiting unless the hosts and probably the entire committee have been checked. The current situation with youth groups such as scouts, guides, sports groups etc. is that all leaders and helpers should be CRB checked before being allowed to work with the youngsters, but now the Government wishes to include anyone who comes into contact with children." We have created a situation in which those who—

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the conclusion that I am rapidly coming to—that one of the problems is continuity in the judicial system? A single sentencer should see cases through beyond the point of sentence and have feedback on whether that sentence is effective in reducing crime, which is what the system is all about.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is all a matter of greater accountability and making sure that once boxes have been ticked, a case is not pushed off to someone else and does not disappear from sight. A number of colleagues have made reference to that.
	I close with one final issue. It is an old chestnut, but the older I get, the more true I think it is. Once we start to deconstruct authority, what do we put in its place? Not long ago there was an automatic assumption that the teacher was always right, the head was always right, the policeman was always right, and the adult was always right in any situation where there was a conflict of opinion with a child. It was rough justice, but there was certainty.
	Now we know that adults are flawed and make flawed decisions, but we have so deconstructed authority that we have taken away the certainty that the old system provided and put nothing in its place. Instead of certainty with a bit of rough justice, we have uncertainty with a lot more justice, and a lot more people losing out because that authority and that sense of certainty have gone.
	There is a continuum in the deconstruction of authority that leads to people feeling, "I can do what I like, because I can challenge anyone I like and I will get away with it. It will take the system so long to catch up with me that I can do what I please." That is how people feel that a sense of justice has slipped out of the system. It has been cumulative over a long period. From what Labour Members have said, it seems that they have not quite been able to deal with that. It will thus fall to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to do so when they get the chance.

Richard Taylor: I was delighted this afternoon to hear the Minister, in his introduction, emphasise the right of everybody to enjoy their life in peace. The sentiment was echoed by the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). The other thing that has pleased me is that I do not think I have ever seen quite so much nodding from those on the Government Benches to contributions from Opposition Members, and vice versa. There is a huge degree of consensus across the House.
	I shall not speak about young people and alcohol abuse, because that topic has been covered. Instead, I shall echo the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and speak about single examples of neighbourhood harassment. I welcome the comment from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that these troubles occur across all social backgrounds.
	The two cases to which I shall draw the House's attention both involve articulate, intelligent families who live in their own properties. In the first case, the family own two houses in a terrace, and the alleged problem involves the house in between those two related properties. There has been physical and verbal abuse, foul language and intimidation of the elderly parents, in particular—so much so that they are frightened to walk alone across the neighbour's property to their relatives' house. That abuse culminated in actual assault, first, of the elderly father, and the assaulter was given a five-year caution. The second assault took place on the elderly mother, even though the caution was still in existence. The perpetrator was arrested, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided against prosecution, as the only witness was the husband, and that was inadmissible. So the family continue to live, in their words, as prisoners in their own house, and their quality of life has plummeted. They have given me 55 pages of evidence documenting intimidation and abuse, including many communications with the police and the CPS. Yet those intelligent, articulate people are still terrified to walk between their two houses.
	The second case again involves privately owned houses at the end of a very pleasant and quiet cul-de-sac in one of the best areas of my constituency. Although two of the most deprived parts of the west midlands are in my constituency, those are not the areas to which I refer. There are about eight dwellings at the end, and again, two constituents from the same family live nearby and are separated by the alleged troublemaker. There are not many other complaints, because one of the eight houses is empty; one couple are frequently away; one elderly couple are in poor health and too frightened to complain; and one property is on the market, so the owners cannot get involved because they do not want to jeopardise their sale. We are therefore left with just the two houses occupied by members of the same family, and another lady elsewhere.
	The harassment has been going on for seven years, involving physical obstruction, verbal abuse, obscene gestures, spitting, rubbish thrown into gardens and trespassing. Some events have been recorded on CCTV; again, there have been many police visits; and, again, the CPS has felt unable to prosecute. I have taken up the matter, and I have a copy of a letter from the CPS, but it just has the matter down as allegations of behaviour not amounting to crimes, and it claims that it has no evidence of concerns from other people. That is incorrect, and I shall take it up with the CPS.
	However, my constituents wrote to me, saying:
	"The whole situation is becoming a very dangerous farce, anti social bullies and thugs are being allowed to rule our communities... It is high time that the law was sorted out to put the police back in control and make penalties commensurate with the offences and not just a derisory slap on the wrist."
	Since the very sad Pilkington case and the case in Lichfield, where somebody was actually killed, constituents have written to me, saying much the same as that letter. They say, "Put the police back in control, give them the powers and make the penalties fit the offence."
	We have probably all heard this old proverb, "Good fences make good neighbours." In these days of open-plan living, open estates and very few barriers between houses, we cannot have good fences to make good neighbours, because it is just not possible. So we must somehow give the police and other authorities more weapons to be more effective.

Brooks Newmark: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that four Members wish to speak in the next 30 minutes.
	Like many other Members, I should like to address the Minister with some advice based on anecdotal evidence. Having been a Member of Parliament for the past four years, I have had experiences like those of many other Members and I hope that what I say will help the Minister to come to some sort of solution to the problems that many of us have addressed.
	I want to begin by congratulating not only Essex police as a whole, but my local police in Braintree and Witham; I am thinking not only of full-time police officers, but of specials and police community support officers. Against the backdrop of there being an attack on individuals every 30 seconds in this country, we have seen locally a reduction in the number of incidents of antisocial behaviour. My local police are to be congratulated on that.
	The problems, however, are numerous. I have five children, and I would not bring any of them into Braintree town centre on a Friday or Saturday night. I would rather take them to the cinema in Freeport, which is at the edge of Braintree, because the town centre has almost become a no-go zone—whether because of the binge drinking or the youths congregating and looking aggressive. It all becomes intimidating, not only for people wanting to bring their families to the town centre, but for the elderly as well. That is the first problem.
	The second problem is the 24-hour drinking culture that has developed. I had a meeting with my local police chief in Braintree recently, and he commented on the fixed-price, all-in drink promotions. He said that they did not bode well for a reduction in "antisocial behaviour"; he actually used that phrase. The police are very cognisant that the drinking culture, including the cheap alcopops and 24-hour drinking, is a major cause of antisocial behaviour.
	Youths congregate not only in the town centre, but in the estates and villages, and the problem is not only the fact that they congregate. A number of times, particularly last summer, I have gone out to talk to the young in the town centres and estates, asking them what the problems are. The problems are twofold. First, there are no community centres for them to go to anymore. There were community centres in Braintree 10 or 15 years ago, but now they just do not exist; all the areas have been developed as a result of the pressure for house building and so on. There are not even simple things such as shelters. My council did build a wooden shelter, but a week later the whole thing was torched and it was there no more. The council is now trying to build shelters out of metal, which cannot burn down.
	Village greens have become centres for drug dealing. During the 2001 election—sadly, I did not win a seat—I distinctly remember speaking against my Labour opponent in Silver End. We were discussing antisocial behaviour and the drug culture, and the audience started laughing because through the window at the back could be seen a youth on a moped dealing drugs with kids from the local village. Village greens also face the problem of antisocial behaviour.
	There is also the issue of disruptive vehicles. When it is otherwise empty, in the early hours of the morning, Freeport becomes a go-cart centre—people skid their cars around there. The right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) mentioned motorbikes. I had a meeting up at Cornish Hall End, a small village at the north end of my constituency. On Saturdays and Sundays people there have problems, and not only with young people. Mature adults race their motorbikes through the village. Motorcyclists read that if they zoom through Cornish Hall End and on to Finchingfield, they get a very good run. That is highly disruptive and antisocial to people in those villages.
	Then there is the major issue of schools. As I am sure that many of us hear when we go to meet our local headmasters, a small minority of children are disruptive and antisocial and cause problems for the vast majority of children.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) talked about noisy neighbours. Every single week when I hold my surgeries, I get at least one or two people who come in and talk about noisy neighbours. That becomes very frustrating, whether it relates to loud music or arguing and shouting. What about the concept of neighbourliness? I say, "Can you talk to your neighbour?", and they say, "Yes, we do, but they simply won't listen, and the noise and abuse goes on."
	When I meet elderly people, including members of Braintree pensioners action group, they often say that fear of crime, not necessarily crime itself, is a major issue in terms of antisocial behaviour. I live in a semi-rural area with isolated village communities where many people live alone, including elderly people, and this issue is brought to me time and again.
	The town centre of Braintree, in particular, and Witham, to a certain extent, have become no-go areas at the weekend. That takes up a great deal of police time. The police keep telling me how much time they spend on form-filling and transporting drunks and people who are behaving badly. It is similar to the situation in schools, where a few badly behaved children can impact on the learning of the many.
	So what are the solutions? Locally in Braintree we have a mixture of community initiatives and enforcement. We have hard-line policing policies at closing times. We have two alcohol-free zones. We have street pastors on Friday nights who work independently of the police; I congratulate them on the work that they do. We have a term-time roadshow that interacts with children of all ages. In the past year, there has been a reality show attended by about 1,500 children aged 13 and 14 to try to equip them to deal with the problems that they will encounter. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). We have had Operation Marple, whereby the police go around not only confiscating alcohol from minors but trying to provide solutions by finding alternative activities for them. It is not merely a question of punishment but of trying to figure out ways to engage with and help the young children in our community.
	The schools in my area have done a tremendous job in improving behaviour. I congratulate those at Maltings academy and Rickstones academy in Witham, Tabor school, Notley school and Alec Hunter college, including the heads, for the excellent work that they have done, particularly in the past couple of years, in reducing antisocial behaviour in their schools.
	When I have gone out with the police, they have targeted hotspots. When I meet small community groups, I tell them that they must report it to the police when there is a problem because the police can then target those hotspots over time and reduce antisocial behaviour in those areas. Most important of all, there is a need for greater police visibility, especially on the estates and in the villages. I congratulate the PCSOs on the excellent work that they do in trying to reduce the fear of crime and on interacting with the community.
	On a national level, the police must be freed up from at least the perception, if not the reality, of red tape and bureaucracy that keeps them off the street: we want them on the street, as we have heard from many Members on both sides of the House. The police should have the power to remove, not just to disperse troublemakers. As the Conservative Treasury team have said, the price of alcopops should be increased as a way of reducing antisocial behaviour. There also need to be tighter curfew orders against persistent offenders.
	Most important of all, parents have to take responsibility. That was stressed by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). If no other message comes from today's debate, we must point the finger at parents and say, "You have a responsibility for your own children."
	Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the good work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the Centre for Social Justice on tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour and the breakdown of Britain today.

Dai Davies: I start by saying how much I admire the work of the police. It is an unenviable job, and to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, the police have expressed frustration to me about their inability to get charges through the Crown Prosecution Service and into court.
	Although we have spoken a lot about the young people of this country, it is not just people under 18 who cause antisocial behaviour. It is often families and people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, so it is not right to demonise young people. In fact, I had the honour of attending a meeting of the all-party group on youth affairs last week, chaired by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). Some 50 young people were there who took an interest in their community, in law and in government. I urge Ministers to speak to those young people and listen to them, because they want to put things right as well.
	I have lived in the same street in my constituency all my life, and it has saddened me to see the change over the past 20 or 25 years. The community has disintegrated in some parts of my constituency. Areas such as mine relied on traditional industry, and we are now seeing the second and third generation of people unemployed. That has led to a loss of identity and belonging. Children have nothing to belong to, and they do not want to address anything in their area any more. They are disengaged from all aspects of life.
	We have heard about the tragic death of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, and we could all cite cases of exactly the same problem. There are two ladies living alone in a council property in my constituency who have had their windows smashed four times in the past six months. Often in such cases, the same thing happens as in the case of Fiona Pilkington: the crime is reported, but because it is at the same address as a previous crime it tends to get low priority. I have tried and tried to get those two ladies registered as vulnerable adults, because they are in trouble all the time, but the council will not recognise that.
	The Minister said that the problem of perceived crime was reducing, but I only hope that real crime is not going up. In my constituency, the police have told me that because of the recession the increase is more than 10 per cent. I have said before in the House that we have taken police away from our communities. We have empty police stations across our boroughs. I have said many times that we should go back to having police houses on estates. It was said earlier that the police need to live with the problem, but they used to do that. They were there on estates and on hand to respond to problems.
	I have asked many times for family intervention. When troubled parents have two, three or four children, the chances are that the children will not be angels. Unless we deal with the problem on a one-to-one basis, it will not be solved. The Minister mentioned the family intervention project. Will he clarify who pays for it, who controls it and when he will consider rolling it out in other areas?
	The problem of education has been mentioned. I have said many times that children are now having children, and the grandparent role has disappeared in some families because people aged 30 do not see themselves as grandparents. The wider family is starting to dissolve.
	One project that has been introduced in our area is the PACT meeting—partners and community together—which is a wonderful concept using the multi-agency approach that we have heard about tonight. The problem is that when issues are raised at PACT meetings time and time again and nothing is done, it drives away people in the community. They think, "What is the point? Why should I attend? Nothing is ever done."
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest said, people are becoming afraid to come forward and confront those who are causing problems. We have heard tonight about the 3,000 or so laws that have been introduced over the past 10 to 12 years. My hon. Friend and I were present when the "Anti-Social Behaviour Enforcement and Support Tools" document was published. The sadness is that although we support the document, we have yet to see it really put into force. The last thing we need is more laws that will not be enforced.
	I was very concerned to hear in the news recently about the proposal—it has albeit been put to one side—for police to carry guns. We are moving towards an American system, and that is something to which I object. My worry is that we are also looking at vigilantism. If we are not to deal with the situation in a law-abiding way, in some areas—I have seen such things on estates in my constituency—we could move towards vigilantism and people taking the law into their own hands.
	I have urged police in my constituency to walk the streets in plain clothes. Very often, they turn up like the cavalry, with the horns blowing and flashing lights, so by the time they arrive, the perpetrators have gone—the police have driven them away. That is wonderful for that street at that time, but the police have just moved the perpetrators elsewhere. CCTV cameras have the same effect. They are a wonderful concept, but they tend to move the problem from one street to another, not to solve it.
	The police look at statistics—the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism mentioned that the number of targets and statistics is being reduced—but my worry is that they book smaller crimes, such as parking offences, and the community is given those statistics on what the police have done. In many cases, the police do not investigate car damage. I have urged my constituents at the very least to ask for a log number whenever they phone the police, because if their call is listed as "no crime", at least there will be a log of the call to the police station.
	There is huge concern about the loss of funding. We have heard about the multi-agency approach, but the budgets of borough councils are being squeezed in their every year. I am afraid that the number of youth workers will decrease and that community centres will be closed. I am also concerned about short-term funding. We put something in place for six or 12 months, but if it works, it should be there for ever. We are worried that the voluntary sector is being squeezed and losing funds. We have heard about wardens on the streets and community pastors—there are lots of initiatives, but it is no good having an initiative for a week or a fortnight. If it works, it should be funded for ever.
	One debate last week was on the Territorial Army. I wonder whether there is an opportunity for the young people who are causing problems to be part of the TA, the Air Training Corps or the Scouts. Can we develop a programme that will get those youngsters involved in community work? I know there are lots of problems with health and safety these days, but there are so many things that need doing in our constituencies, and I am sure there is a will and way to do it.
	I look forward to the day when people from both sides of the House can sit around the table together—we have heard good ideas and wonderful things from people of all parties and, I hope, from independents. I wonder whether we could one day get together and put those things down on paper and introduce them.

Shailesh Vara: The House will be aware that in the year 2007-08, 3.9 million instances of antisocial behaviour were recorded in England and Wales, but we also know that that is a gross underestimation of the actual number, because many people simply will not report instances because they fear reprisals. In fact, it was estimated that last year, more than 30 million instances of antisocial behaviour took place in England and Wales. The Government have pledged to be
	"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime",
	but I think we are all agreed that that phrase has a hollow element to it right now.
	It is not just the Opposition who are critical; I would like to refer to an article in  The Daily Telegraph last month by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who wrote:
	"Come the election, Labour will have been in office for 13 years. Voters are entitled to ask why...the Government didn't act sooner to counter the hothouse in which neighbours from hell are so easily bred."
	Crucially, he added:
	"After all, if the defence offered up over the banking crisis is that no one saw it coming, the same cannot be said in relation to anti-social behaviour. There was plenty of evidence that lives were being destroyed."
	While the Government sleepwalk, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are daily subjected to utter and absolute misery, many of whom are the most vulnerable and poorest in society. There is no point Ministers shaking their heads in disapproval: the facts speak for themselves, as do our post bags—

Shailesh Vara: I will not give way, because the Minister will have plenty of time in the winding-up speech.
	The Government have had a plethora of initiatives, with a mixture of results. ASBOs have had limited success and, instead of being a deterrent, they are often seen as a badge of honour. As for penalty notices for disorder, I issued freedom of information notices to every police force, and the results were disturbing. There were instances of penalty notices being served on individuals who had not yet paid the previous penalty or penalties. One individual received nine PNDs over a five-year period, eight in one year alone. One would have thought that there would come a point when people would stop issuing PNDs and take some serious action.
	One of the things that we must do most urgently is stop the police suffocating under bureaucracy. People do not join the police force so that they can become clerks in offices and sit behind desks. They join the police force so that they can be out on the streets, fighting crime. That message has not been taken on board in the past 12 and a half years.
	Antisocial behaviour is a stepping stone to more serious crime. If a young thug believes that today he can terrorise his neighbours, there is no reason to believe that tomorrow he will not walk into a shop, assault the shopkeeper and take the day's earnings. It costs £60,000 a year to keep an individual in a young offender institution, and it costs £41,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. We are all clear that for every pound that is spent on a youth offender institution or a prison, it is a pound less for our pensioners, our armed forces, hospitals, schools and so on. So it is vital that we try to deal with the root causes—as hon. Members have mentioned.
	Early intervention has been mentioned. Many social issues need to be considered, but time does not allow me to go into them in great detail. They include family breakdown; drink and drug abuse, both by parents and the offending children; lack of stable family units; lack of parental supervision; and lack of discipline, both at home and in schools. There is also a distinct lack of role models. The only role model that some individuals have is a father—in some cases, a mother—in prison or, if not in prison, engaging in activities that will lead to imprisonment. Crime is seen as a family occupation, often followed by the next generation. Being picked up by the police, fined or locked up in prison is simply seen as an occupational hazard.
	Of course, many of the solutions have been covered—the work of councils, other agencies and so on—but I want to mention two particular instances in my constituency, both from the voluntary sector. One concerns a highly respected local individual by the name of George Martin. Mr. Martin and a group of well-meaning people raised funds and bought a centre in the village of Stilton in my constituency. They run that centre on a voluntary basis and it is a great success—as I know, because I have visited and spoken to the children and young people who use the facilities.
	Another successful venture is in the village of Somersham, where I have visited a refurbished and improved play and sports area for young people. I went there with a dedicated councillor by the name of Steve Criswell. It is a partnership between local business and the district and parish councils, and is also a success story for a local initiative.
	There is one other measure that I would like to commend to the House: the national citizen service, which has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). It comprises a six-week course for all 16-year-olds to have a life-changing experience—an opportunity to mix with others away from home; an opportunity to test their limitations and challenge their prejudices; an opportunity for personal growth and service to others. The national citizen service will help to prepare young people to become better citizens, so that they can learn to be responsible and have respect for themselves and others.
	In conclusion, after more than 12 years, six Home Secretaries and countless pieces of legislation and initiatives, there is still so much more to do. This Government came into power on a promise of toughness, but they have shown themselves to be desperately weak. I am only sorry that along the way so many people have suffered and that they continue to do so.

Angela Watkinson: We have heard from numerous speakers this evening that a wide range of strategies are in place to try to deal with antisocial behaviour. However, they are only as good as the sanctions that apply when they are breached, which happens are all too frequently—unsurprisingly, because they are issued to people who are non-conforming and have no natural empathy with others.
	The initiative that interests me most is the child safety order, which allows compulsory intervention when a child under 10 commits antisocial behaviour. To most right-minded people, the thought of a child under 10 out in public unsupervised and getting into trouble fills us with horror. A child safety order allows compulsory intervention and, if breached, can lead to a parenting contract, which is issued on a voluntary basis, but which, if breached, can lead to a parenting order. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he might elucidate what happens when a parenting order is breached. What happens then to the child who required the child safety order in the first place?
	We have also heard about the wholesale breaching of ASBOs. Breaching an ASBO is punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison. I am not sure how often the continuous breaching of an ASBO leads to a custodial sentence, but when it does, it is important that the person concerned leaves prison a better person than when they went in. One way to achieve that is by improving education and training courses in prison. However, one of the greatest impediments to that is that someone serving a custodial sentence who has to make a court appearance will thereby lose their place in the prison where they are serving their sentence. When they leave court, they are transferred to another prison, which means that any education or training that they might have been undertaking is lost, and they have to start all over again.
	To somebody who might not have a good educational grounding before they go into prison, that is extremely discouraging. I hope that it might be possible to do something about that, so that people in prison can at least complete the education and training courses that they take. Even more needs to be done with employers, particularly large organisations, so that people who have completed custodial sentences are given a chance of employment, so that they can become productive members of society.
	All the strategies that are in place need serious review, to see which are working and which are not, and how well they are working or otherwise. Barnardo's has had some interesting ideas about both education programmes for children and parents outside prison, and a range of specialist services, including remand fostering, which all need to be considered together in addressing how best to combat antisocial behaviour.
	There is great perplexity among people in my constituency who have been victims of antisocial behaviour. We have big problems on our buses. At one stage, two routes had to be withdrawn because the antisocial behaviour was so bad, with passengers and drivers being abused and bricks being thrown through the windows, but that has now been overcome. The routes had to be withdrawn for a period, so all the people who wanted to use them were disadvantaged because of the bad behaviour of a small number of people. I should pay tribute to Havering PCSOs, who are now doing an extremely good job of riding on the buses and giving confidence to elderly passengers in particular. Happily, for the time being at least, the bad behaviour on the buses seems to have been overcome.
	Two elderly ladies who were living on either side of a problem family have contacted me this week. There was a litany of antisocial behaviour over a very long period, culminating in the family's house being burned down and one of the adult members of the family ending up in prison. These elderly ladies now find that after the house is refurbished, one of the younger generation of the family will be allowed to assume the tenancy. They are extremely nervous that continued antisocial behaviour will lead to their having to start keeping diaries all over again. They cannot understand why a family who behaved so badly have been able to resume their tenancy in a new house that has been paid for by the taxpayer, with no guarantee of any peace of mind for their neighbours.
	I want to see more police powers and more flexible police powers, so that when young people cause trouble, particularly at night out in public, the police can return them not to their homes, as they do at the moment—to the great surprise of some parents, who cannot understand why their young children have been returned home—but to the police station, so that the parents will have to come and collect them. No doubt that will be of great inconvenience to some parents, who have no idea where their children are—and who care even less—because they do not supervise them. That will at least give the police an opportunity to discuss the children's behaviour with the parents in an attempt to modify that behaviour. There is also the opportunity for curfew orders and the confiscation of mobile phones. There is a whole flexible range of additional powers for the police to use to try to overcome this scourge in our neighbourhoods.
	For the few minutes that remain, I want to concentrate on what we would colloquially term families from hell—those in which every member behaves in a socially unacceptable way and makes it impossible for anyone living in the vicinity to enjoy their lives, because of aggressive, intimidating and threatening behaviour. Such families often damage their own and other properties and they are unable to live in harmony with others, treating everybody else as a potential enemy. Of course, the children learn this behaviour from the adults around them.
	Strangely, these problem families are in their own comfort zone because everyone else around is scared of them. They are in control of their area and they can make other people's lives a misery without hindrance. The younger members, in particular, often belong to a gang and run around at night causing mayhem. However, having to move somewhere strange where they are not known by others—this is particularly true of the teenagers, who may suddenly be separated from their gang—is the last thing that such people want. Without the local reputation that they have built up, they might become the victim of the sort of intimidation that they have enjoyed meting out to others.
	Although the situation is much more difficult in private property, the threat of eviction from public property much sooner in the proceedings—such proceedings can often take as long as a couple of years—could have a much more salutary effect than issuing ASBOs, which are often treated as a badge of honour and breached again and again with impunity. People should know that their antisocial behaviour could affect the security of their tenancy, in the same way that points affect a driving licence. Their victims might be encouraged to come forward with evidence if they thought that that would be effective, and that would enable the local authority and the police to build up sufficient evidence to take matters to court.
	In short, several improvements could be attempted to address this problem: strengthening tenancy agreements by accumulating sanctions, with earlier eviction as a tool for moderating behaviour; better education and training in prisons, so that people who serve a custodial sentence have an opportunity to be productive and to find employment when they come out; more discretion for police officers and more flexible working hours for PCSOs; and clear consequences for troublemakers to deter them from going on to commit more serious crimes. The decent, law-abiding majority should be protected, and these simple measures could help to act as a deterrent to those who blight our neighbourhoods with antisocial behaviour.

Andrew Rosindell: This has been a lively and worthwhile debate. We have heard compelling arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Government's failure to live up to their promise to curb antisocial behaviour on our streets. I would particularly like to commend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who has done an enormous amount of work on looking at ways of dealing with this problem, as the Government have clearly failed to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) has also spoken, and both are Members of Parliament in the same borough as me.
	Labour's top-down, target-centric approach to fighting crime has quite obviously failed to deliver. It is a fact that 10,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour are reported every day, and almost one fifth of the population believe that there are high levels of antisocial behaviour in their community. Antisocial behaviour blights the lives of ordinary, everyday people who are trying to go about their lives, commuting to work, going out with their friends and walking to the shops. They cannot go about their daily business without being hindered by fear and having to look over their shoulder at every corner. The tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter highlighted the lengths to which people can be driven when they are on the receiving end of this horrific behaviour.
	Shockingly, levels of violent crime have increased by almost 70 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is an appalling record for the Government, who have failed to fight crime and antisocial behaviour effectively. Even the Home Secretary has admitted that the Government have been resting on their laurels rather than effectively fighting antisocial behaviour. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said that she felt the Government might be losing ground, and that they should not be complacent. Clearly, there are fears on both sides of the House that that might be happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) referred movingly to Fiona Pilkington. How many more people like her, who live in fear and who are afraid to leave their homes because of threats of violence and abuse, will there be? That is another example of a family that was appallingly let down by Government failure.
	I agree with much of what my colleagues have said this evening, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who spoke about the need for discipline in schools and the need to deal with truancy. He also said that literacy was a factor in this situation.
	A major catalyst for antisocial behaviour is substance abuse, as we all know. The United Kingdom has the highest level of problem drug use in Europe. This Government have allowed a dangerous and toxic youth drinking culture to develop, spurred on by 24-hour licensing and cheap drink deals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) pointed out, drunken yobs have made our town centres no-go areas, deterring the many people who want to enjoy a quiet night out in town rather than drink themselves into oblivion. Binge-drinking-fuelled antisocial behaviour is a very real problem, and it is out of control.
	Let us take as an example Moston lane in Manchester. On that one street alone, there are 22 premises that are licensed to sell alcohol. In Sheffield, a student was recently caught urinating on a war memorial after drinking himself into a paralytic state. Five years ago, while serving as Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) vowed to "eliminate" antisocial behaviour by the time of the next election. He has not delivered on that promise, and neither have any of his successors. This complacent attitude cannot be allowed to continue.
	We cannot tackle crime unless we also address the causes of crime: family breakdown, drug abuse and binge drinking. We need an extensive review of how to tackle the blight of antisocial behaviour. Measures that work should remain in place and those that do not should simply be scrapped. A poll by the Centre for Social Justice found that more than 75 per cent. of people think that the police are not intervening enough against antisocial behaviour. I believe that that was borne out by the comments of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who had so many concerns that one would have thought that she was referring to a Conservative Government—but of course it is her own Government who have failed on so much of this, and they will pay the price next year.
	The police have been suffocated by red tape and now spend more time at their desks doing paperwork than they do pounding the streets. We will cut police bureaucracy and give them greater powers so that they can respond more easily and more quickly to stop youths who are disturbing our communities. Fewer police sitting at their desks means more police on the streets—and there is no substitute for that. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made very clear, we need to put the police back in control to be more effective, and I agree.
	We will enable the police to remove young offenders from the streets altogether and to propose the introduction of street curfews and the confiscation of possessions as a deterrent against future bad behaviour. If the police believe someone is carrying a concealed weapon, they will be able to search them more easily—without a plethora of paperwork. These would all constitute real and effective measures that would enable the police to enact targeted interventions, which would have a significant impact on stopping those who indulge in antisocial behaviour before their behaviour develops into something far more sinister.
	As you will know, Mr. Speaker, as shadow Home Affairs Minister with specific responsibility for animal welfare, I take particular interest in the use and abuse of animals as tools for the purpose of antisocial behaviour. Nowhere does this horrific concept resonate more strongly than in respect of dangerous dogs. In recent years, the breeding of dogs to scare, intimidate and, in the worst cases, attack others has become a significant and dangerous problem for many inner-city communities and wider urban areas across the country. Irresponsible youths and gang members with antisocial agendas are breeding and training dogs to be overly aggressive and destructive in order to provide themselves with a form of "protection" or, more specifically, "street status". In reality, they are breeding a living, breathing offensive weapon.
	The number of complaints received by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about status and dangerous dogs saw a twelvefold increase between 2004 and 2008. Over that same period, admissions to NHS hospitals for dog-inflicted wounds soared by 43 per cent. It is no exaggeration to say that what we are seeing is an emerging epidemic. It is crucial that we ensure an approach that takes into account the criminal implications, while maintaining the best interests of animal welfare at heart.
	The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits the breeding, sale and ownership of certain breeds of dog. The number of prosecutions brought under this Act has more than doubled over the past decade. However, as the dramatic rise in the number of incidents shows, this legislation has failed rationally to address the problem. This ineffective legislation has also manifested itself most cruelly with cases of innocent family pets being confiscated and destroyed by the police force. It has become all too familiar under this Government that a responsible majority gets penalised by a highly irresponsible and antisocial minority. That is why we pledge to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and replace it with a dog control Act, containing provisions and requirements with a much stronger emphasis on owner responsibility.
	Crime and antisocial behaviour have defined the downward spiral of this Government's 12-year legacy. Broken promises have led to a broken society. Labour's web of failure has now entangled more than just man: man's best friend is also suffering owing to ignorance and a reluctance to review the legislation. Public safety is of paramount importance, and today's problems will be tackled effectively only through properly thought out legislation and adequate support for those who enforce it.

Alan Campbell: This has been a useful and wide-ranging debate, and it was enriched by Members' constituency experiences. I hope that they were not experiences such as the case of Fiona Pilkington—the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) mentioned that—although such experiences do remind us of what can happen in extreme cases, when agencies that people rely upon let them down. It has also largely been a realistic debate—although not entirely, I have to say. There have been no references to "The Wire", a television programme that was the blueprint for Opposition policy at one time, and there were only three references in almost five hours to "broken Britain", one of which was in the last five minutes. Such references are an insult to the police, local councils, the Churches, the voluntary organisations and, most of all, the residents who are working hard throughout the country to make their communities safer and better.
	The reality is that crime is down by 36 per cent. in 12 years. If—this is an enormous "if" as it will not happen—the Government happened to change in the next few months, we would be the first Government since the war to leave office with crime at a lower level than when we took office. That is the reality of the situation, whatever the rhetoric from those on the Opposition Benches.
	I shall address Members' comments in themes, rather than go through each speech. The first theme, which emerged from a number of speeches, was that antisocial behaviour is above all a local matter and that tackling it requires local action. It is a matter not just for the police or the council, but for the whole range of local agencies and partnerships working with local people in local communities. There are many examples of good practice throughout the country. Because somebody somewhere will know how to make the powers that are available work, one of the Home Office's jobs is to make sure that the powers are used by people who know how they work, supporting and challenging local partnerships.
	The second theme is that tackling antisocial behaviour is important in every community and that everyone, regardless of where they come from or whether they are rich or poor, wants to be able to live in their community in safety and with a fulfilling life. Unfortunately, that is not the case everywhere, particularly in communities where offenders prey on the poorest and most powerless. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) reminded us of the need for the twin-track approach of enforcement and prevention—to use that well-worn phrase yet again, of being tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, a prescription that even the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has come to get.
	Through using the full range of available powers and enforcement and prevention, we have got crime down by 36 per cent. in 12 years. What we need is a clear enforcement message and clear punishment. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is not present, but not for the first time, I agree with him in this regard. Having a strong enforcement message allows us to have the next conversation, which is about all the things we need to do to prevent antisocial behaviour. That means that we can talk seriously about the proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on short prison sentences; that was picked up by the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). Having that conversation is only possible when communities know that a strong enforcement message is going out as well, holding people responsible if they break the law.
	A message that came through particularly strongly from Labour Members was the need for proper resources. That was picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). The Opposition were given the opportunity on a number of occasions to make commitments on resources, and everyone will have noticed that they ducked the issue.
	We have an historic number of police officers: 16,000 police community support officers and 36,000 police officers in 3,600 neighbourhood policing teams spending 80 per cent. of their time on their patch. Let us have none of the nonsense about police being hindered by bureaucracy and unable to leave their police stations. To carry on repeating that message is to deny the very good work being done in neighbourhoods up and down this country.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) is behind the game, talking, as he did, about the target culture. As the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism reminded him, there is only one measure: the single confidence measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) pointed out, the confidence target's purpose is to make the police and others accountable to the public in all that they do, not least through the policing pledge, so that they face the public whom they serve.
	The police have the powers available at their disposal, including antisocial behaviour orders, and, as has been acknowledged, the evidence from the National Audit Office is that where these powers are used, they work.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hornchurch chunters from a sedentary position, and he has said, "Never mind ASBOs, what about a warning letter?"  [Interruption.] I am delighted that that is what the NAO said, because I do not care what we use as long as it works. The message from the NAO is that if we intervene once—be it a warning letter or an ASBO—it changes behaviour in two thirds of the cases; by the time of a third intervention, it changes behaviour in 93 per cent. of cases. Both the police and local authorities must be prepared to use the powers and then, if they are not being effective, to escalate things—that is how to get effective action in local areas.
	The focus has understandably been on young people and, in particular, on the need to divert them away from trouble, whether they are the offenders or, as in many cases of antisocial behaviour, the victims of that behaviour. People seem to forget that half the ASBOs given out do not go to youngsters; they go to adults. We need to be realistic about the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system too. I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was realistic in that regard. The reality is that fewer young people are coming into contact with that system, and that is a good thing. When they do come into contact with it, fewer young people then go on to reoffend, and that is a good thing. We should all be united—I hope that we are—in our view that young people, by and large, are law-abiding, decent and upstanding citizens in their local communities. We must ensure that the small minority who cause the problems feel the feel force of the law and the powers that are available. I am determined that that is what will happen, but I am not sure that that determination is shared by those in every part of this House.
	Young people spend most of their day in school—or they should do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke of the importance of good links between schools and the local police. That is why, as the Prime Minister has said, we want to see more safer school partnerships; I wish that we did not need after-school patrols, but if we need them, we should have more of them. It is also why we should be building on schemes such as Sure Start, not cutting them.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the importance of sport—I agree about that—but he did not acknowledge the huge investment that this Government have put into school sport, into school music and into play areas in our local communities. He did not acknowledge it, but Lib Dem councillors up and down the country are, almost weekly, going around taking credit for the investment that is going into their local communities.
	Much has been made of supporting families, and that is crucial if we are to win this struggle against antisocial behaviour. We need to make sure not only that parents are more responsible, but that they have the support they need to turn the corner for their family. That is why we are extending family intervention projects, which have been supported very strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and others. They are expensive, but they are not as expensive as doing nothing. If we take a short-term sticking plaster approach, it will ultimately cost us more in the long run.
	We also need to send a strong message with tough sanctions—we need tough love. It is not a choice to sign up to family intervention projects, but a responsibility that people have to do everything they can, with support, to turn their family around. The hon. Member for Hornchurch talked about poverty and educational underachievement, and I agree with him, but I do not think it is as simple as saying that if it was not for family breakdown none of these problems of poverty or educational underachievement would exist. The reality is that the causes of crime are extremely complex and they give us, as politicians, tough choices. Do we continue to invest in Sure Start, do we invest in family intervention projects or do we cut inheritance tax for the richest 3,000 in the country?
	A lot has been said, as is often the case on these occasions, about providing good local facilities, particularly for young people. The Government have put money into providing activities on Friday and Saturday nights, when—surprise, surprise—a lot of antisocial behaviour happens. In 81 areas, there were 5,000 projects. It is up to local authorities and others to step up to the mark and to ensure that they are doing everything they can to make sure that those facilities and activities are available. I hope that when local councils look at their budgets and look to make cuts—youth facilities are often easy targets—and are scrambling to get 0 per cent. council tax increases next April, every Member of this House who wants youth facilities will be out there arguing for them in their area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who is no longer in his place, asked about the confiscation of assets—a key part of tackling offenders in our community. The direct answer to his question is that the half the money taken in assets seized goes to the Home Office and makes up the Home Office budget that goes into front-line services. The rest is shared between agencies. He mentioned, as did others, community cashback, which ensures that money goes into local schemes and under which £4 million has gone into local projects, voted for by local people. Residents can see that justice is being done because they can see that crime does not pay.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that we have to take a holistic approach. We have to ensure that the money, commitment and resources that go into local areas are all applied to the problems in those local areas. I commend to him the Total Place pilots that are running up and down the country to ensure that we are getting the most that we can out of our investment of money from Departments and agencies. That is crucial in these difficult economic times.
	In conclusion, antisocial behaviour is an issue for every community. People have a right to live in safety, peace and security. We need a realistic assessment of where we are and of the progress that has been made. It is important to acknowledge and build on that progress. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford said that antisocial behaviour and harassment happen less often than they did. I agree with her, but they still happen more often than they should.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of tackling anti-social behaviour.

That the Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2615), dated 25 September 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 September, be approved. — (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Public Authorities) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved. — (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2725), date 9 October 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved. —(Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made,  and Question proposed,
	That Mr David Kidney be discharged from the West Midlands Regional Select Committee and Mrs Janet Dean be there added.— (Mr. Tami.)

Motion made, and Question (29 October) again proposed,
	That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.— (Mr. Tami.)

Ordered,
	That Mr Andy Slaughter be discharged from the Children, Schools and Families Committee and Ms Karen Buck be added. —(Mr.  McAvoy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection. )

Ordered,
	That Emily Thornberry be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Mr Andy Slaughter be added. —(Mr.  McAvoy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection. )

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr. Tami.)

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place. It is an important debate; it is a debate about the power of a supermarket and the future of farming in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the importance of the subject is agreed by nearly all parties in the House, and we should certainly be able to ensure a fair debate. I hope that we can get the points across. The Minister is in his place, ready to answer, and I am sure that we will hear some positive comments coming back.
	Of course, as we know, farming has been under the cosh. It went through foot and mouth disease and bluetongue. Indeed, farming in the UK has been through all sorts of other problems. Of course, farming has overcome whatever has been thrown at it— farming struggles on and has kept going. However, there remains a persistent problem that severely limits the ability to maintain a viable farming business: the power of the supermarkets. With constant pressure to reduce prices, farmers are often unable to make profits. The way to address the issue for the benefit of farmers and consumers alike is for the Government to follow the advice of the Competition Commission and introduce a watchdog to oversee supermarkets and to implement a local sourcing policy for the larger chains.
	With regard to the mounting pressure for an ombudsman—one was supposed to be appointed in August this year, following consultation—the Competition Commission failed to secure voluntary agreement between retailers. I really do think that that was a let-down. Unfortunately, a great opportunity to show a real will began to fall through. The commission's chairman, Peter Freeman, who headed up the groceries inquiry, said that smaller chains have recognised the problem; but, regrettably, the majority of them have not. That is a sad indictment, when someone has worked so hard to try to achieve an understanding to work together. Of course, the introduction of an ombudsman to police the way that supermarket supply chains operate is called for and supported by the National Farmers Union, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Friends of the Earth, just to name a few who believe that that is the right way forward.  [ Interruption . ] As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) says from a sedentary position, there are others who will express such support.
	To highlight the dominance of the supermarkets, I should mention that £1 in every £8 in the UK is spent at Tesco's. That proves how successful Tesco is; it shows that it is a great British company, with a great ability to get customers through its shops. No one can argue with that. However, the strength and the success of Tesco has allowed it to dominate the market, and it has the power to drive down prices. Because Tesco has such a dominant position and is so powerful, it ought to use that power not to drive down prices, but to ensure that a fair farm-gate price is paid to farmers in the UK. We should stand by our farmers.
	We all know that farmers are vulnerable to market conditions, and that supermarkets are placed to exploit that vulnerability. Farmers always risk being driven out of business, as we have seen in the dairy industry, which has been decimated by prices being driven further and further down. The average net income of dairy farmers in Lancashire in 2002 was £32,700. By 2006 that had fallen to £13,300—less than half. I know the Minister will say that it has now gone up, and rightly so, because that level was not sustainable. The problem is that when net income fell so dramatically, we saw a wave of family dairy businesses going out of existence, never to return.
	That is the issue. If we are not careful, we will not have young people coming into farming. Farming will not have a future. We have to make sure that farming is attractive and that it has a future. We must stand up for the farmers and ensure that farming in the UK will continue. We must make sure that the UK is not totally dependent on foreign imports of everyday items such as milk. That would be good for UK farming and industry. The same applies to arable farmers, beef producers, the pig industry and poultry farmers. All those foodstuffs could be produced in the UK and must be protected.

David Taylor: Can we not see a good example just 33 kilometres away south across la Manche? In France, the big supermarkets, such as Leclerc, Géant, Casino and Carrefour, are very good at developing links with their local farming community and frequently promote regional produce and allocate part of their space within the store for that. Could we not do that in the UK?

Lindsay Hoyle: I could not disagree more. That is absolutely correct. If we are going to use—

Lindsay Hoyle: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are no two ways about it: the issue is about the word "local", and ensuring that it means local and guarantees sustainability in that community. It is about ensuring that local farmers and producers are protected and have a market on their doorstep, and about pricking the conscience of supermarkets. That is what all my hon. Friends who are present are saying tonight: it is about supermarkets having a conscience.
	The issue is important, because in 2008 the local products sold in Tesco accounted for 2.2 per cent. of UK sales, compared with 1.7 per cent. in the previous year. That is a 30 per cent. increase in sales when compared with 2007. The trend is continuing, and there is a market for local produce. Even Tesco recognises that, and everybody else does, too. That is why the issue is so important, and we have got to ensure that people understand it.
	In my constituency, we are lucky, because we have Booths, a regional supermarket chain that challenges the main supermarket players. It procures 80 per cent. of its meat from local producers, and it focuses on ensuring that its fish, bread and beer come from local ports, bakeries and breweries. It works hard to engage with the communities with which it trades, and as a result it has developed own-label product ranges in partnership with local suppliers and producers. That arrangement is good for farmers, communities and consumers, who can choose to buy locally sourced food that is celebrated and diverse. What more can we ask for? Booths has set the standard; that is the bar that we expect all the major changes to reach; and that is where we must try to drive the supermarkets. Booths is good for our area and a good employer, and we must listen to it and try to do what it does.
	We must ensure that we maintain local protection for our farmers. I am quite happy to say that we should protect our farmers; I have no qualms about that. It was suggested earlier that the French would think of nothing else, so we ought to ensure that we do so, too. The issue is about being fair and ensuring that we do so much more. Morrisons has a local policy to buy British meat—UK farm produce. That is good, but I should like to take Morrisons a little further down that road and say, "We welcome your buying policy for UK produce, but try to buy local for your local supermarkets, rather than shipping it up and down the country."

Lindsay Hoyle: Absolutely. That is what the issue is about: paying a farm-gate price to ensure that farmers exist in the long term, and do not keel over in the short term. That is why the ombudsman, as recommended by the Competition Commission, will be responsible for investigating complaints that are levied at grocery retailers under the recently drawn up grocery supply code of practice. The ombudsman will arbitrate on disputes involving UK farmers who feel that they are not getting a fair deal from the supermarkets for their produce.
	The issue is also about the breakdown of the relationship between suppliers and supermarkets, because that provides no benefit to anyone. The suppliers are being forced to operate on ever-reducing profits, and the supermarkets risk pricing themselves out of achieving the aims of the local sourcing programmes that chains such as Tesco and ASDA now have in place. I welcome those programmes, but the supermarkets must not keep pushing the price down when they want to sell local produce. The ombudsman would ensure that the relations were formally maintained, with a positive outcome. We need a genuine agreement between supermarkets and producers that benefits our farming community and ensures that consumers will still benefit from competitive prices.

David Drew: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. One of the interesting things is how split the supermarkets are. A number of them are willing to accept the ombudsman. However, the big supermarkets—principally Tesco and Sainsbury's—will not. We need to do something about that.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The issue is the fact that the main, big supermarkets have not signed up. If they were to do so, a lot of the problems would stop. That is why it is important that we ensure that they get it right.
	Another example from Chorley that would make significant headway in achieving a local sourcing policy would be to tackle the expanding supermarkets before applications are granted. We could do a little more on that issue. In our case, there is a new application from ASDA, creating 400 jobs. Those jobs are welcome. ASDA trades on the outskirts of Chorley, but it wants to come right into the town centre. The 400 jobs are welcome, but what will be the consequence of the supermarket's arrival in the centre? I want it to be part of the community and support it. It should ensure that it has a local buying policy that would be sustainable for our local farmers. That could be part of the key to ASDA's commitment to the town.
	If ASDA offers three hours' parking at its supermarket, could it not help subsidise the parking around the market? It will be competing with the other shops—the small, independent retailers. We have to give a bit of support. I want supermarkets such as ASDA and Tesco to be part of our community. They could do so much more. We do not want to stop ASDA—far from it. We want it to engage in supporting Chorley; we want it to be part of the town and play its part.
	It would be nice to hear from the chief executive of ASDA. He rightly says what a great store ASDA is, and I am not going to knock that. However, I would like him to come along and say what his company is going to do for Chorley to help it become a more vibrant town. Chorley is a market town, of which I am proud. I was born and brought up there. I do not want to get ASDA out, but I want to get ASDA to be part of Chorley, like me. That is where the future lies. I am sure that the Minister will be able to consider the issue and see what we can do.
	The issue is about the future. As we said, the competition is so important. We should ensure that there is competition, but it should be fair competition for all. The issue is about sustainability, security of supply and supporting the farming industry. Farming has enough on its plate; we need to sort out the badger problem in other areas and we must ensure that the nitrates issue is sorted out as well. All these pressures are being exerted on farmers.
	My last point to the Minister is about the forms. Why do farmers have to fill in form after form? Why do we not let them get on with what they do best—farming? We could avoid the duplication for different Departments. Let us streamline it all, so that there is one form, instead of the multiple forms, for all the Departments. The bottom line is that if farmers are filling forms, that stops them from making money. In the UK we have good pig, beef and dairy industries. We have upland and lowland sheep farmers. We have to protect the future, including that of our chicken and egg industries. I look to the Government to be on the side of farmers and not against them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), as well as his supporters on both sides of the House, on securing this debate and on the manner in which he made his remarks. I listened closely to the points that he made, and I will try to respond to him over the next few minutes. If I am unable to do so or if I miss any of his concerns, I will of course write to him.
	I congratulate the farming industry on its progress as a successful and vibrant industry that produces the raw materials that we need to enjoy a wide range of delicious and nutritious food. Lancashire of course has its fair share of excellent food and drink products, including traditional Lancashire cheese, which was one of the first UK foods to take advantage of the European Union protected food name scheme. In August, I had the pleasure of helping to host an event at No. 10 to promote the scheme and to encourage more of our quality regional food producers to take advantage of it. There has been interest in the scheme from other food and drink producers in the county, and DEFRA officials stand ready to provide guidance as appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend will communicate that offer to his local producers.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind invitation. I would be happy to take advantage of it if I get the chance to do so before the general election.
	The Government recognise that the marketing of regional and local food can bring benefits for producers and consumers. There are fewer middlemen, and that means farmers and small producers are able to retain a higher proportion of the end price for their produce. Local food chains increase consumer choice and raise awareness of and interest in local food by helping to improve consumers' links with and understanding of the rural economy and food production. Suppliers will flourish by providing what customers want, and there is growing public enthusiasm for locally produced food, especially food with a clear regional provenance. Consumers prefer to buy local if they can, and supermarkets are supporting that. Although I would not want to comment on Asda's recent planning application to open a new store in Chorley town centre, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, its early support of the Plumgarths regional food hub is an example of the retailer's interest in local food. As he and other hon. Friends said, that should be supported.
	Research suggests that UK locally sourced food retail sales will total £6.2 billion by 2013, up from £4.7 billion in 2008—a growth of some 31 per cent. over that brief period. In recognition of this, we have provided a range of assistance to local food chains, including helping regional and local food producers to overcome various barriers to market. We have funded meet-the-buyer events for retailers and the food service sector. We also support farmers markets and farm shops and encourage the use of food hubs and shared distribution facilities.
	We recognise, however, that there has been mounting concern over recent years among various industry and lobby groups about the power of major supermarkets, as described by my hon. Friend, and the impact that this has had, including on the ability of local producers to access markets. The Government and the Office of Fair Trading shared these concerns and so asked the Competition Commission to investigate the groceries market to see whether supermarket power was indeed detrimental to consumer interests. The Government are committed to fostering competitive markets that work in the best interests of consumers, including in the groceries market. By looking for ways to help make markets work better, we can enable businesses to compete freely and fairly, giving UK consumers more choice and better value.
	As such, we welcomed the commission's final report, published last year, and thank it for its work to implement its findings. The commission found that in many respects competition between supermarkets was strong and working effectively. Competition in the groceries market provides consumers with diverse choice, good value and low prices, which is reflected in the numbers of shoppers who choose to buy their groceries in supermarkets.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the premier contracts that some dairies have with farmers. I discussed that matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only last week. It is producing a report on the failure of dairy farmers in Britain, which will draw on the lessons learned and help the industry to move forward.
	The Competition Commission identified two adverse aspects of competition—areas in which the market structure does not work in the best interests of consumers. It identified areas where local groceries markets were dominated by single retail chains, restricting the choice available to shoppers. It also found that certain supermarket practices passed unacceptable risks or costs on to suppliers, mainly food manufacturers and processors, creating higher levels of uncertainty about their income and so limiting their ability to invest and innovate.
	The commission proposed a number of remedies and recommendations to address the adverse effects on competition identified. They include a new groceries supply code of practice for all supermarkets with a turnover of more than £1 billion a year. The GSCOP will come into force next February, and the OFT will play an important role in overseeing its implementation. Additionally, the commission recommended that the Government establish an ombudsman, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and our other hon. Friends who support him mentioned. Its duty would be to monitor the GSCOP and arbitrate disputes between suppliers. It was also recommended that a competition test be added to the planning rules regarding the location of new supermarkets. That was a request that my hon. Friend made in his closing comments.
	The Government are considering those recommendations carefully. Competition policy is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but DEFRA too will play an active role in determining the Government's response to the proposal to create an ombudsman, and we want to take full account of the views of stakeholders.